Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 12

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simeon Osborn (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 frankly would've PRODed too as nothing here is actually substantial and significant with my searches mirroring this also, the best news there is, only about being the attorney for his clients. SwisterTwister talk 23:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This article was basically unsourced when I prodded it. Now it's full of sources covering WP:ROUTINE-level events. Still fails WP:NBIO. shoy (reactions) 17:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I thought this would meet GNG, but 1) the only two articles that are substantially about him are press releases 2) I can't confirm the award for Trial Lawyer of the year - there doesn't appear to be (anymore?) a Puget Sound chapter of the organization in question. (see map here). He was president-elect of a Washington Chapter which seems to be defunct, but the only announcement of the award is a press release that appears to have come from his law firm. LaMona (talk) 23:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus to delete. I just want to comment on, It's also rather a struggle to find more sources, given the common name that he has. That's not a valid argument. We're here to produce a quality product, and sometimes that takes work. Lowering our standards because something is hard just doesn't fly. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Tucker (singer) (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)

Clearly fails WP:NMUSIC. MSJapan (talk) 04:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not yet notable per WP:MUSICBIO, no significant coverage online from WP:RS. WP:TOOSOON at best. OnionRing (talk) 05:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete he is not yet a notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - MSJapan, Johnpacklambert, OnionRing: what part of WP:MUSICBIO #1 (basically WP:GNG) is not being met here by the cited sources? These look like reliable sources and coverage is clearly significant. ~Kvng (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on the interpretation of "...multiple, non-trivial..." in point 1. It's true that "multiple" can mean two. But in the context of the rest of MUSICBIO, which sets a reasonably high bar, I wouldn't say that one article in his local small-town newspaper and story on his local TV affiliate station really covers it. If that were the only thing he was failing on, I would let it slide, if for example he was in an unusual niche genre. But he currently fails all the rest of the 12 points listed there. OnionRing (talk) 14:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to get pointy about this but WP:MUSICBIO only requires, "at least one of the following criteria" be met. The one criteria that is met here (#1) is basically WP:GNG so I don't see a strong case for rolling past that. I haven't seen anyone at AfD successfully argue that multiple to means more than two. Are you arguing that the TV station and local paper are not reliable sources or do you just have a feeling that this subject should not be considered notable despite technically meeting WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO requirements? ~Kvng (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are reliable sources. But I believe that the "at least" one requirement is intended to cover musicians who have abundant coverage in several reliable sources, not just the minimum of "multiple", i.e. two local sources. So a new singer-songwriter who's suddenly shot to fame, getting press reviews all over the place, etc. shouldn't also be expected to also have awards, charting, rotation, etc. to be considered notable. That's not what we've got here, however. OnionRing (talk) 15:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you concede that WP:GNG is met here but appear to be asserting that WP:MUSICBIO holds these subjects to a higher standard. I take, "At least one" to mean, "One or more" and I don't see any indication that there's more to it than that. My reading is that WP:MUSICBIO is significantly more permissive than WP:GNG; A musician with no coverage is considered notable if they have a charting single or placed in a major competition, for instance.

No, I'm not conceding that WP:GNG is met here. Neither WP:GNG, nor the apparent intention of WP:MUSICBIO. If you want to treat it as a written rule to be abided by to the letter, then there's probably nothing I can say to change your mind. OnionRing (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted to address that with the editor on his talk page, but I think you've hit it right on the head. "Barely meeting one of 12" isn't the spirit of the guideline; as a matter of fact, this is exactly the sort of article the guideline is designed to prevent. I'd add that WP:NOTNEWS would also apply. In the end we have an unsigned, self-releasing indie artist. There's a million of those out there, and they're not article-worthy. MSJapan (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are lots of unsigned self-published artists and most are not notable. Only a small number of these have received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and these should be included. To say otherwise is to disregard WP:GNG. The only case I'm aware of where WP:GNG is not enough to establish notability is WP:CORPDEPTH. ~Kvng (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Meets WP:GNG based on cited sources. WP:MUSICBIO is more permissive - a topic that meets WP:GNG will also meet WP:MUSICBIO per point #1 there. See above discussion for more detail. ~Kvng (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unfortunately this doesn't meet WP:GNG. First, the sources are local and we do not use it for GNG purposes. Secondly, I'm worried about the quality of sources. This is essentially a listing for a show Tucker will perform Kentucky Bred for the first time before an audience Saturday, May 14, at the historic Russell Theater in Maysville. People can get tickets for the show on Tucker's website. CLICK HERE for the website. with a few added in quotes by his manager and parents and himself. This is not what I call a significant secondary coverage. In addition, the tone of the article makes me doubt if this has gone through an editorial review. The other source is a local source as well although the tone is much better and this has a bit more content. However, both sources essentially confirm it is WP:TOOSOON. Had there been one more national source, I would have considered. But at this time, this is a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of a non-local requirement attached to WP:GNG. Maybe you're thinking of WP:AUD which only applies to organizations. ~Kvng (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage in local news only is insufficient to meet GNG. MSJapan (talk) 23:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GNG says nothing about the geographic location of sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not explicitly, but it does require the "outside world" to take notice, which means one needs to get wider coverage than just the local town paper. MSJapan (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So now we want to exclude topics of local interest from the encyclopedia? I don't think so. ~Kvng (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, we want to exclude local topics that fail WP:NOTNEWS and meet none of the other notability guidelines. Don't make nonsense blanket statements. MSJapan (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as still nothing actually suggestive of its own notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep yes, the coverage is somewhat local in nature, but on the balance I have to believe that this just meets GNG. Two = multiple, after all. It's also rather a struggle to find more sources, given the common name that he has. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as too soon. This is someone who has performed in a few local clubs, and got written up in the home-town paper for ... having not yet made it but who may have gotten a break thanks to being a friend of the grandson of George Clooney. The article is 3 (count them) sentences. It's not enough for notability. I also seriously hope that we don't start adding an article everyone who has ever had a local news story written about them. That would include nearly everyone living in a small town in the US. Those papers are reliable sources, but "Reliable source" means reliable for facts, not necessarily proof of notability. LaMona (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add some more about notability. Notability states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Later it says: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included." Insisting that two sources guarantees GNG is simply wrong. Nothing guarantees GNG. Also, as MSJapan mentions, notability is not a short-term thing. Again, quoting from WP:N : "Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. Just as a lagging economic indicator indicates what the economy was doing in the past, a topic is "notable" in Wikipedia terms only if the outside world has already "taken notice of it". It also requires that sources be independent of the subject. I would argue that a small-town paper is not as dependent as, say, a press release, but it isn't as independent as a national source, and that a small-town paper is not an indicator of the "outside world". LaMona (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails notability. Can always create a new page for him once (if?) he later becomes notable. Shelbystripes (talk) 14:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree with the above arguments. This appears to be textbook sort of 'too soon' case. The sourcing isn't that great, and what's actually been reported is essentially 'he's good but hasn't gotten notoriety yet'. I also support deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As it happens, I share some of the concerns about excluding "local" sources prima facie. If a subject were covered in several "local" (which usually just means smaller--The New York Times associates itself with a location, too!) outlets from different places, that would mean something to me about the subject's notability both in the colloquially sense, and, more importantly, for WP:WHYN: if this musician had been covered in smaller papers in, say, Illinois, Texas, Wyoming and Kentucky, then I think we could start to see we have the necessary "multiple sources so that we can write a reasonably balanced article." But I don't think two sources from, essentially, the subject's hometown suffices to offer a balance of perspectives. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, good, policy-based arguments from both sides--Ymblanter (talk) 07:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rare Objects (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:N :)Ladsgroup^overleg 22:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete What's needed, and might be possible, is an article on the author. Then her books can be listed there or if notable enough have their own articles. Kitfoxxe (talk) 01:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article only says that the book exists and quotes some people who like it.Kitfoxxe (talk) 12:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hmm. Looks like the author is either notable or really close to it, and agreed that we don't have an article on her. Still not sure what the right thing to do it here, posting another 'find sources' tool to peruse what I can find... Jclemens (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it appears that substantially all of this essentially brand-new article had been Copyvio from the get go, with no prejudice for re-creating initially as an entry in a list of works for Ms. Tessaro, who appears to be a notable novelist, from whence it can be later spun out if it develops sufficient independent notability. Also, no prejudice to someone else trying to rescue this in the AfD process, but I didn't find enough sources on this novel to make that appear feasible. Jclemens (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources or indication of notability, very little prose except review section, which smells of advertising, and possible COI. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 05:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep or redirect to Kathleen Tessaro. Technically there's enough coverage for this book to have an article, since it has two reviews and an article, however at this point in time it seems a little soon. One note about trade journals: there's a misconception that they review every book that they receive - they don't and I feel safe in saying that they likely review less than 10% of any given mainstream publisher's work (and even less for the non-mainstream publishers). However right now this is a little slim and I'd feel better waiting for at least one more review before making this into its own article. This released a few months ago so it's possible that the book may gain more coverage in the future, so at most this should redirect to the author's article. I'm leaning more towards a redirect, but I have no true issue with a keep. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I found more reviews, including one from the Daily Mail. I hate using that as a source, but at this point they're still considered a RS on here. I wouldn't use anything other than a book review, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm going to turn this into a weak keep at this point - there's enough here to justify inclusion, albeit weakly. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notable book by notable author. 382 WoeldXar copies in libraires same year of publication. Decent reviews. As for reviews, It's true I and other librarians no longer trust Kirkus; but even i=the friefe wreviews in LJ and ALA booklst are selective. Maajor newspaper reviews count even more, if hey aztre not from the homs city of the author.

• Comment I object to the WP:Cherrypick of quotes in the section on "Reception". The presumably glowing quote from Publisher's Weekly follows a sentence that says: "An intriguing correspondence between May and the shop’s mysterious absentee co-owner brings further entertainment and character insight, though it doesn’t fit seamlessly into the rest of the plot." So the sentence quoted cannot be said to represent the review. Calling any review "favorable" is, IMO, drawing a conclusion that is not factual. We should avoid inserting these kinds of conclusions into articles. I also note that reviews from these publications that specialize in reviews are short (~250-300 words), mostly descriptive of the plot, and rarely do any analysis. They exist for people to decide whether to buy the book, and are not part of literary criticism by any stretch. LaMona (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I included the specific quote because while the PW review was mixed, it was still more positive than negative. The problem with reviews (but especially trade reviews) is trying to rephrase the review without getting something wrong and picking a quote that doesn't require you making that particular review 4-5 lines long. If you want to re-write the reception section and pick different quotes that will fit better, go right ahead - I have no problem with that. Now as far as the trade reviews go, there is no consensus that they aren't usable. I'm aware of the most commonly cited problems with trades: they're short, they're always positive, and don't give a lot of in-depth criticism. However at the same time the arguments for use have been that while they're short, they can still give enough content to be a review of the work, they do have editorial oversight, and the outlets are selective in what they review. They're also not always positive - multiple trades have no problem with criticizing a work.

I get what you're trying to say and I've even opened up a thread about this at NBOOK myself. So far there has been no consensus that trades are unusable as far as notability giving RS goes. The main issue has been that not all trades are equal and getting rid of all trades would mean getting rid of some places that are pretty well thought of, like the Horn Book Guide and the ALA's Booklist. In the thread I opened I tried arguing that maybe only select trades could be used (Booklist, HBG, School Library Journal, LJ, for example), however even that got shot down. The reason I'm saying this isn't to be difficult, just to show that this has been an ongoing discussion that's unlikely to be easily resolved any time soon. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do see your point about this and offhand I don't think that all trade review outlets should be usable (Kirkus is terrible, however the Horn Book Guide and the ALA's Booklist are quite good), but there has been no consensus so far that they can't be used. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW, it's really only the Daily Mail that made it into a weak keep for me. I still have no true issue with this redirecting to the author's article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that they can't be used. I think they are limited in their weight in terms of notability. Using them is preferable to linking to Amazon or another site that is mainly a sales site. But that wasn't my main point. My main point was that it is not factual to say "The Daily Mail rated Rare Objects favorably" - that is an interpretation of the review. Someone else could read the same review and say: "The Daily Mail was lukewarm about the book." For movies, we allow folks to say "Rotten Tomatoes gave it 5 stars" but we discourage people from saying "Rotten tomatoes liked it." One is factual, one is not. There isn't a rating system for books, I know, but making ones own characterization of the review is not appropriate. If other third-party source says "The Daily Mail rated it highly" (and that someone was writing in a reliable source) then that's a citable fact. LaMona (talk) 02:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Ahhh... gotcha. That's a pretty good point - I'll be careful of that in the future, with the phrasing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I think a review in all three of Publishers Weekly, Library Journal, and Booklist (in addition to Kirkus Reviews) qualifies as notable. Also, the April edition of Library Journal has a more substantial review of it than the referenced Feb edition. maclean (talk) 06:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, as more than two non-trivial independent reviews. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, have added a not so flattering quote from Kirkus Reviews to bring balance to the article. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet wp:NBOOK because there are only short reviews in industry and library sources, nothing analytical or substantial. LaMona (talk) 02:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LaMona, i can not see where your deletion reasoning is related to WP:NBOOK. Could you please show by underlining/bolding the relevant bits here - "1.The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,[4] and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.[5]" Here are the footnotes as well - "1.The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment. 2."Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable. An analysis of the manner of treatment is crucial as well; Slashdot.org for example is reliable, but postings to that site by members of the public on a subject do not share the site's imprimatur. Be careful to check that the author, publisher, agent, vendor. etc. of a particular book are in no way interested in any third party source. 3.Independent does not mean independent of the publishing industry, but only refers to those actually involved with the particular book. 4.A book's inclusion in a reliable bestseller list is non-trivial treatment if the list is notable or the list is published by a notable media outlet and the list is republished or covered by other reliable sources. Bestseller lists in retailer or e-commerce sources like Amazon or self-published sources like personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, wikis, and similar media are not considered reliable. Social media review sites like Goodreads and LibraryThing do not qualify for this criteria. 5.Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the book. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material). The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its author, publisher, vendor or agent) have actually considered the book notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it." thanks, Coolabahapple (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You really don't need to quote the whole thing - a link will do ;-). I do not consider PW, Kirkus and LJ to be "substantial" or "non-trivial". A review of 200 words that is primarily a plot description is, in my mind, a product announcement, not a literary review. The purpose of all of those is to function as decision aids for purchases, not to set the book in its place in the literary canon or in scientific or historical thinking. A real review would be a review in the NYTimes, New York Review of Books, or in another publication that provides actual analysis and possibly criticism. None of the three mentioned here intended to do that. LaMona (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the [Kirkus] services page, where it describes itself as "an authoritative voice in book discovery" and "our website audience is dominated by consumers actively searching for books to buy,". So that puts it very close to Amazon's "recommender" service in terms of its goals, but an honest recommender service because it can't be finagled the way that Amazon reviews can. Basically, it's a buyer's recommendation service, with books (or galleys) submitted by publishers who can also purchase advertisements in the journal. Oddly, Kirkus requires publishers to provide 2 hard copies AFTER the review is done. (I honestly don't get this.) Library Journal states that "Books are selected for their potential interest to a broad spectrum of libraries." So that is their focus. Like Kirkus, they do not seek out books to review, but choose from books that publishers submit to them. It is a buyer's guide for libraries. Publisher's weekly is a service for publishers, providing publicity for books. Notable is that PW asks publishers to provide, along with 2 copies of their books, "An accompanying letter should contain a description or synopsis of the book, and any pertinent publicity information, including the author's previous titles, blurbs, or previous reviews. Book club, paperback, audio or movie rights sales, author tours of 5 cities or more, a print run of more than 10,000 or an ad/promo budget of more than $30,000 should be noted." I would assume that this information helps PW decide which books to review. Basically, being in LJ or Kirkus or PW means that your publishers succeeded in getting this publicity for your book as part of the promotion package that comes with your contract. All of these publications are useful, but they are also part and parcel of the marketing chain for books, in the same way that many computer magazines do "reviews" of new software that basically say what it does, but don't put it through any major tests. That's my take on these review services. I think they have a use, but they do not indicate notability of a book beyond that fact that it was actively marketed. LaMona (talk) 21:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as not entirely confident but there's enough with the listed sources. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, thanks LaMona for your response, sorry about including all of nbook but sometimes a wall of text looks better then just a tiny link:), i like your reasoning about whats trivial, but this is open to interpretation ie. "Garfield is a cat" is trivial(?) but "Garfield is a fat orange comic cat" is not(?), some things are short but sweet, just look at Haiku:), regarding kirkus, lj and pw (and other trade publications) not indicating notability, previous afds have shown that some editors may be uncomfortable with articles that only have these reviews but they are usually deemed enough to meet nbook. ps. i added some of the kirkus review which is actually negative, surely not helping their business(or is it just a clever marketing ploy:))? Coolabahapple (talk) 06:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't entirely disagree with LaMona. I think that some trade reviews are well, garbage. For instance, I rarely use Kirkus anymore because I've had more than one person (most notably DGG) argue that they're fairly unreliable for reasons much like them asking for hard copies after the review rather than before. However at the same time some trades and trade-type outlets are pretty solid. Booklist is one that I liked even before I joined the ALA and the Library Journal tends to be relatively discerning about what they review. They're primarily aimed at libraries, however at the same time their reviews are read by multiple outlets and libraries' selections (and by extension the LJ's reviews) tend to reflect the mainstream readership as much as a review would from the New York Times - although this is just based on the argument about the trades' primary audience. Now whether or not their reviews can be in-depth enough is a valid point. I can see this as an argument and honestly, I'm uncomfortable with keeping an article based solely on trade-type reviews, however there have been arguments that you can still get the basic gist of the review on just a few sentences. I'd personally support a new discussion at NBOOK on the subject of trades as sources, although I'd argue for the use of some trades and the exclusion of others as sources. However this is a discussion for NBOOK and not really for an AfD, TBH. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Changed to delete: the apparent promotionalism is a sufficient reason, even with some notability. Notable book by notable auhor. 492 worldcat copies with a few months of publication is a good informal indication. As dioe reviews, major reviews in accepted national level newspapers or literary magazines remain the best source. LJ and Booklist are OK but although they are failly selective , the reviews are too short to be meaningful. Kirkus used to be ver convenient though not b very critical, but prints at least some of its book reviews for money, which makes them useless Most of these are mainly aimed at libraries, and they tend to go in parallel with the number of library copies, because libraries buy on the basis of these reviews. Newspaper and Maxine reviews are aied at the general public. Depending on the type of book, one may indicate more than the other. DGG ( talk ) 07:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. I was personally unaware of the problems with kirkus, but despite that, I don't think we can discount it entirely. Combined with the other two sources, I think this just meets NBOOK. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have a question for DGG, LaMona and Tokyogirl79 relating to Kirkus Reviews. I've been trying to find sources that show that they review for money. The only information I've found so far shows that "Kirkus Indie" specifically reviews books for money. Does Kirkus Review proper review for pay? Can someone provide a source? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say so on the web site, so I'm guessing the answer is "no." The journal has subscribers, takes advertising, and provides other services (editorial ,etc.) which are most likely the bread-and-butter of the magazine. It does say that they review about 7,000 published books and 3,000 self-published books a year (which they call "indie"). They also say that reviews average 300 words. here. What I didn't know before is that when you pay for an "indie" review(~$400-$600) you have the option of not having it published. In other words, if you don't like the review, it is never seen. They don't say how many (what percentage) are/are not ever put on their web site, but to be sure I would never trust an "indie" review. How it works. Note that Kirkus runs a marketing service that appears to be aimed at "indie" authors, (it's a "pay-fer") so there is a financial incentive to creating a positive-enough review that the author will want to buy the service. I also have never seen a Kirkus review of a publisher's book that out-right pans the book -- after all, publishers are their fodder - they supply the books as part of their marketing. If Kirkus gave out (and published) reviews that basically say: "this book is a stinker", that publisher would most likely think twice about having Kirkus review their books in the future. And if major publishers defect, then Kirkus loses its position as the go-to place for reviews.

I would love to see statistics from these reviewing services: how many proofs/books received, how many reviewed, which publishers, etc. LaMona (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• changing to Delete. as promotional. The paragraph of review quotations is what one puts on a book jacket, not in an encyclopedia ; The remainder is the plot,and that's not enough. The promotional aspect is shown more clearly by the initial insertion as a copyvio.

As for notability, the criteria for books are so very loose. I have in the past argued either the acceptability of reviews like this for notability when I thought the book suitable for encyclopedic coverage, or just the reverse. The actual situation is that the world of sources is not neatly divided into usable for notability or not usable: many sources, including these, are of borderline significance for notability, and in my opinion show the uselessness of the GNG. In any borderline situation it can equally well be argued in either direction. It does not serve for making decisions, but the way we really use it is to justify our intuitive decisions. What we need is more exact criteria. DGG ( talk ) 22:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, hi DGG, you now have a "keep" and a "delete" for this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I adjusted them. As I've said, for any borderline case, a good argument can be constructed in either direction. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The book passes Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria, which notes:

  A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

  1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.

  The article lists reviews from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Publishers Weekly, Library Journal, and Booklist.

  Cunard (talk) 05:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, its now been 12 days since the last relist, could an admin please either close or relist this afd, thanks, Coolabahapple (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Can not find any secondary, reliable sources on this organization. Fails WP:ORG. -- LuK3 (Talk) 23:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I cannot find any reliable, secondary sources on my own. A Google search turns up unrelated sources, or sources that are otherwise unreliable. JudgeRM 23:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Subject lacks coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 23:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: An article by an acknowledged connected contributor, concerning a project on which I am not seeing the reliable 3rd party coverage needed for notability. I would suggest adequate and appropriate coverage would be to add content concerning the project to Team One (advertising agency), although that too should be based on 3rd party sources. AllyD (talk) 07:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hayes Cemetery Gold Hill, OR (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)

Completely unsourced article about a small private cemetery with less than 50 graves, and no claim of notability besides "it exists". Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Aside from a few WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs, I could not find significant coverage of this cemetery in reliable sources. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Subject only mentioned in passing in RS, thus lacking notability. Meatsgains (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as basically still hinting at A7 material; regardless, there's still nothing close to even minimally convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matt maine (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. Searching the name on Google yields little results, most of them either unreliable sources, primary sources (which are themselves unreliable), or completely unrelated. Google News turns up unrelated articles. JudgeRM 22:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 22:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 22:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nominator. Page currently has zero references. Meatsgains (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Concurr with nom, no RS found. Article created by Single Purpose editor with only one edit. MB 14:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and I basically consider this A7, I would've also explored PROD in the case there were no Delete votes here to support and carry its deletion; still certainly nothing close to the needed convincing substance. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Disney–ABC Television Group. postdlf (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of channels owned by Disney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article is a mess, with arbitary classifications based on demographics and tons of edit warring by obsessed IP editors. It's also redundant, as all Disney-owned television networks are divisions of the Disney–ABC Television Group, whose article already contains similar content organized in a more informative manner. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No reason to keep this list around. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 22:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator re:redundant. Plus there are some that are made up like ABC News+ and Eyewitness News Channel and this list seem to out of way, ie. disconnected, and thus a target of disruptive editors that make up stuff. This just makes more work for editors. Spshu (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect into Disney–ABC_Television_Group, the title is a likely search query, and there's already a list of channels at the Disney ABC Group page.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and then Redirect if needed to ensure this is not simply restored and to show there's still nothing for its own convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Prisencolin. Plausible search temr on which we have a relevant page. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Contested notability. SMBLakitu (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. As McGeddon noted in his prod, "Fails WP:NWEB with no secondary sources or awards." There are still no secondary sources. —C.Fred (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable. Websites are not inherently notable, so what exactly makes this one special? Lacks coverage from independent reliable sources, article so far contains sources only from Ride Vine itself and its social media. Sro23 (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Clearly fails WP:GNG. I cannot find any independent, reliable sources talking about this site. In fact, all sources I found were either the site itself, its social media accounts, or unrelated content. JudgeRM 23:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NWEB, almost WP:A7. All sources are primary and the only claim to fame ("has been notable as a key player on the Facebook Live streaming platform") is not supported by the source given. --McGeddon (talk) 08:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there's still nothing actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 19:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nomination is essentially recommending a merge. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NASAMS 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No sources show how the notability of this version of weapon system NASAMS is independent from NASAMS itself. It is better as a section in its parent article, not as a standalone. Merge and redirect. AadaamS (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Ohio Teen USA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of notability; all coverage in reliable sources (of which the article cites none) is in the form of "X was crowned Miss Ohio Teen USA in 20YZ". That's not enough for an encyclopedia article about the pageant. Besides, the current content is not in the least sourced and raises WP:BLP issues. Huon (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has now been appropriately referenced. PageantUpdater (talk) 01:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with that. There is one appropriately referenced sentence in the article, plus another appropriately referenced line in the table. The vast majority of the content is still unreferenced; the BLP issues still persist. If this represents the best available references, it should at best be turned into a one-line stub. Huon (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is part of a series of articles that encompass all of the individual state competitions and there is no reason to single this one out for deletion. Although sourcing generally can be improved in most (if not all) of them, that in itself is not a proper reason for deletion. I also note that the Rhode Island competition was recently put up for deletion on essentially the same grounds as argued here, and the result of that discussion (here) was Keep. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC) correction by NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This to me looks like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. No argument is presented that the organization and/or event meets our guidelines of notability. It's simply not possible to write a meaningful article on the pageant that's based on reliable secondary sources. Huon (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "other stuff" essay gets bandied about quite a bit, but discussants often forget that much of that essay addresses situations in which comparisons with other articles is appropriate. It is particularly appropriate to cite other articles if those articles establish a relevant precedent. And that's what we have here -- we have articles on each of the other state-level run-ups to the national competition, with no argument whatsoever as to why this particular state-level article should be treated any differently than the other fifty. Huon, if you truly believe that the state-level articles should not exist, you should go to the Beauty Pageant WikiProject's Talk page and start an RfC. If the community agrees that they should all be deleted, then that's what will happen. But as things stand right now, the community has not decided to do that and to delete this one article, but leave the other fifty in place, will serve only to thwart Wikipedia's goal of providing comprehensive coverage of the topic.

I'm also a bit puzzled by your concern that it will not be possible to "write a meaningful article" on the pageant. The instant article is a list-class article -- the only need for sourcing is to verify the accuracy of the list. The discussant above has already shown that on-line sourcing was possible for some of the years. And there is no reasonable doubt that off-line sourcing can be gotten for all of the other years, if only because these events would have been covered by the daily newspapers in the cities in which they were held. Furthermore, one thing I noticed about the newly-added cites is that they didn't always come from the city in which the pageant was held -- newspapers in other Ohio cities also covered the event. Indeed, the McGinn article for the 2012 winner was picked up by the Associated Press. The sourcing is out there, waiting only for an editor to spend some time in a microfiche reading room. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article (or list, or whatever) is not much worse than many of the other 49. I don't think it should be treated any differently - all of them should be either deleted or pruned until they comply with WP:V and WP:BLP. But I need to start with one, and this happened to be it. I disagree that accuracy is the only criterion we should care about; that's not supported by WP:LISTN. I also disagree that the given references "verify the accuracy" - they don't, for much of the content of the list. I also disagree with the assertion that local news coverage of the individual pageants would suffice; compare WP:NEVENT. That's the kind of routine news coverage that explicitly doesn't confer notability. Huon (talk) 23:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Personally, I'd lean to delete, but if it was cut down to just a properly sourced list, where all BLP violations had been removed, then that would be a very, very weak keep. Most, if not all, of the references are run-of-the-mill routine local news coverage. This has never been acceptable on its own to establish notability. Blackmane (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I agree with NewYorkActuary, especially in light of the result of the Rhode Island AfD. Completeness is a virtue in encyclopedic coverage, and attempting to cover assorted state pageants in the national article would be unwieldy. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jenni Engebretsen (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)

Her mid-level political and business positions don't appear to satisfy WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable PR person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep In addition to the state.com piece already used in the article, here is an NYT piece covering her wedding, and a whole bunch of brief mentions covering her work both with the DNC and the RIAA: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. That said, most of these mentions are very brief; so she clears GNG, but just barely. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep surprisingly for a person of this professional title there is a modest amount of biographical content in the public record. I see that the article currently omits some of her prior professional experience in the record industry, which augments a presentation of her biographical sketch. Generally, I would discard an article based on a wedding announcement (which does not undergo normal editorial processes and is often self authored). However, here we can sketch elements of her biogfaphy via the public record and thus she clears GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 07:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 07:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notability has been (barely) established by the sources provided. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article is in violation of reason #6 in the Wikipedia deletion policy because the title of the article, "Hackproof," is a neologism, and the article is primarily a description of the original research of Joseph Mitola, as evidenced by the fact that he has made the only substantive contributions to the article, the lack of citations ("refs forthcoming" in the References section), and the article's explicit admission that, e.g., "The proof of this fact is a little cumbersome. It is implied in technical papers cited below explained below,[3] has been proven, and is in the process of being published." The colloquial term "hack-proof" is in common use, but may be more appropriate for Wictionary than Wikipedia, and the article discusses the term as used specifically by Joseph Mitola in his research rather than its common usage. Bthompso8784 (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Having read the article over a few times, I'm not completely sure what it's talking about. What I am sure about, however, is that there isn't any coverage of this word, even though it's been used in a few news articles. Overall, seems to fail GNG. Delete per NEO. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 04:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 04:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 04:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:jmitola) See https://hackproof.com/ for an example of "hackproof" that is not hackproof. Software radio was a neologism before it became mainstream. Hackproof is on the same trajectory. If wonks and Wikipedia want to drop a cutting edge article then fine. I will stop contributing to the cause. There is no quid pro quo here, but I'm not going to keep sending my annual checks if the editors are being capricious and arbitrary. Do your research and you will find a critical need for this article. And the format of the discussion group is a little off the wall as well. Jmitola (talk) 09:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Numerous claims are unsourced; refs forthcoming is not an acceptable hack for this and is why we've the Drafts namespace. Software-defined radio is actually a Thing™ though. "same trajectory" mayhaps, but is still CRYSTALBALL-ish; we prefer blunt edges already worn-down and processed by third-parties.
• Please starve The Beast; Foundation are blowing the monies on "consulting"-fees anyway... (Might consider supporting Internet Archive; arguably more noble cause to donate toward)
• "...format of the discussion group is a little off the wall as well." — How so? -- dsprc ^[talk] 00:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I feel like any of the subjects discussed in this article could fit better in some system/computer security article (and maybe they already are), and the specific title is more of a wiktionary thing. As an addendum to that: Hey article creator (whoever you may be), chill out, don't take this kind of thing personally. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an essay masquerading behind a neologism. What they [experts] do not explain very well is... is a gigantic red flag for WP:OR; there is no definition for the assertion that a computer is hackable in uncountable ways (separately, the words have meaning, but together they do not). (Just to pick a few, but I actually read the whole lot)

Even if "hackproof" was a term in use, I support the deletion of that article and the recreation of another one, since exactly zero bytes of content can be salvaged. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. ubiquity (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 21:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

V05 (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

NN local band that fails WP:NBAND. Their coverage is almost entirely local, and there's a lot of it that does not meet RS, especially when it comes to their "awards". The end result, however, is that they are an unsigned indie cover band. MSJapan (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There does seem to be lots of local coverage. The MVT reference seems to satisfy #11 - the rotation element of WP:MUSIC. Gab4gab (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, that's questionable - MTVu is not the same as MTV, as it is only available on 750 or so college campuses to students living in on-campus residential housing, and only through the on-campus television offerings. If that's the only requirement they meet, and only did so for a week, I don't think it meets the "significant coverage" aspect. It is still grossly outweighed by the "unsigned indie band" portion, which basically precludes them from most of the other requirements. Also, most of the coverage is not RS, but I've erred on the side of not hacking it out. MSJapan (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I was not aware of the limited scope of MTVu. Changing to delete. Which I haven't done before. Gab4gab (talk) 22:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete "unsigned cover band" pretty much says it all. There are reviews, but all localized in Madison-specific sources. This seems to be a band that isn't known beyond one city. LaMona (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete An absolute delete. Non-notable band (known only in a city). Btw, I had previously raised concerns about this article before and said it was actually eligible for G11. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I'm simply still not nearly convinced by what the article contains and its sources included, none of it suggests the needed substance, and with nothing else suggesting better, delete is best. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency Aeromedical Service (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 service. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is notable as the only emergency air ambulance service in Ireland. --Kwekubo (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• — Note to closing admin: Kwekubo (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

• Is there a corresponding Irish Wiki article? Tpdwkouaa (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's not clear from the nom what notability criteria is being applied, but to my understanding the subject would seem to meet the GNG and ORG criteria. Relative to the GNG criteria, WP:SIGCOV would seem to be met as there is seemingly non-trivial coverage across various independent outlets and a broad span of dates that deal with the subject specifically. For example, the following sources represent non-trivial coverage (these are not "passing references" in which the subject is mentioned fleetingly, but coverage on and about the subject itself): [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. On ORG, these types of sources would seem to equally demonstrate the WP:ORGDEPTH, WP:AUD and WP:ORGIND criteria for sources establishing ORG notability. Perhaps additional sources of this type might be added to the article. However that notwithstanding, I'm not sure I am following what NN criteria is unmet here.... Guliolopez (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Significant coverage in RS has been found. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree with all points above - notable and RS provided. GeneralBelly (talk) 11:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Easily referenced to reliable sources, the article meets both GNG and the ORG specific SNG. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Easily meets WP:GNG, with a large number of reliable sources related to the topic. For example, [14][15][16]. Omni Flames (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets WP:GNG, numerous sources available, article reflects this, thanks to additions by above editors. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 02:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Usha Mukundan (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 biography does not meet notability criteria outlined at WP:BIO or WP:PROF. The only referenced claim to notability is a minor teaching award and the only other reference appears to be a biographical profile by a local publisher. Deli nk (talk) 17:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notability has not been shown. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not pass WP:Prof or WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPROF. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as still nothing at all actually convincing for even minimal notability. SwisterTwister talk 08:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. Engleham (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only thing that looks plausible for notability is the best teacher award, but it's a provincial-level rather than national-level award, and as near as I can tell this is the sort of award that maybe 100 people a year win, so not very selective. I don't think it's good enough, and other than that there's no evidence of passing WP:GNG nor WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 08:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Stoddard (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)

Dallas / Funimation voice actor, most known for Inspector Meguire, a main character in the Case Closed series. Only one convention appearance and it's local (Texas) [17] Reiji Takayama is a main character role for Witchblade. Dr. Hiriluk in One Piece isn't listed as a notable character on the One Piece list. Not much to go on besides a few brief mentions in Dallas newspapers for his role in local theatre productions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable voice actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Several decent roles, but no reliable sources to back this article up. Esw01407 (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sadly there is a lack of sources here to establish notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 08:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Promotional article created by the WP:SPA product vendor editing on a WP:ROLE account, referenced only by their marketing page for the product. No indication of notability per WP:GNG, and no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. OnionRing (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This page is not unambiguously promotional because all information stated is neutral. The article is going through history to features' description. If by any moment, there is an advertising content, I would be glad to rephrase my sentences. Before asking for deletion, I wish contributors were participating in the content´s modification and evolution. OpenContrib 15:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teclib-Edition (talk • contribs)

Now that this article is at Articles for deletion, the issue is not just possible promotion, but lack of notability and independent sourcing. Please see WP:N.Dialectric (talk) 05:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage of this software.Dialectric (talk) 05:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not meet WP:NSOFT - I can find no independent sources of information. The software is relatively new (started in 2015) and appears to be open source that is still in development (there is a statement that it will be available in fall 2016). So this is too soon, and unfortunately the article was created by user Teclib-Edition, and Teclib is the name of the company that lists the software. Smacks of WP:PROMO. Teclib-Edition, you do need to abide by conflict of interest policies. If your software is truly successful, someone neutral will create an article for it. LaMona (talk) 00:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to International Fiscal Association. czar 08:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Promotional. No external references. Better merged into International Fiscal Association which is notable. Rathfelder (talk) 14:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to International Fiscal Association. If someone wants to add properly referenced content to that article, fine. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 08:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CARiD (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)

Like many COI works, the page is made to look well-sourced without being so in actuality. The sources are all broken links, primary sources, trivial mentions, original research and other junk sources. The article is overtly promotional. A page listing corporate sponsorships and product discounts offers little benefit to Wikipedia and its readers. Even if the company turned out to be marginally notable, there is not enough here worth salvaging. I have no COI/financial connection. CorporateM (Talk) 20:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Seems like it is promotional as well as the creator having a conflict of interest. Could also qualify for a speedy deletion under section G11 of the Criteria for Speedy Deletion. Class455fan1 (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I was not able to find any independent sources. The majority of the sources in the article are not independent, they are listings of sponsorships by the company. Totally agree with nom. LaMona (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm not convinced salting is called for; the last deletion was four years ago and this is a fairly low-traffic discussion. Mackensen (talk) 02:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article was first sent to AfD six years ago[18] and escaped salting despite 3 out of 4 editors suggesting it. It was nominated again a year ago[19] after several speedy deletions for unambiguous advertising. The "KEEP" votes in the latest AfD (closed as "no consensus") are unconvincing and some of those KEEP votes are from accounts that had then-recently added promotional content, like sponsorships, trivial rankings (see WP:ORGAWARDS), and Better Business Bureau ratings. Like many COI works, the sources are well-formatted and give the appearance of strong sourcing, but do not stand up to scrutiny. They are trivial mentions, infographics, junk sources, etc.

I suggest the article be deleted and this time SALTED. I have no COI/financial connection, but I encourage the closer to keep an eye out for it and weigh the arguments, not just the votes. CorporateM (Talk) 20:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Any article that dedicates an entire paragraph to their website redesign is grasping at straws to come up with content. This article looks good on the surface, but the content is uniformly trivial - just a business being a business. Sources are nearly all unremarkable trade magazines that re-report financials. LaMona (talk) 00:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Salt instead as DGG nominated this last time, and frankly, examining everything listed here still found nothing convincing and, with that said, I would've deleted earlier. Considering its history (yes, even if it's years ago), it's still enough to suggest there's vulnerability of having this started again....and if it is, it's best through another path such as AfC where someone including even myself can review it for assurance. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The original AFD appears to have been closed as a no consensus incorrectly (as a non-admin closure) despite nobody making any case for inclusion. On the basis of that, the contents of the article (which lacks any reliable sources or major assertions of notability) and the lack of participation here on a relisting that should never have been needed, I am closing this as a delete at this time without it needlessly passing through AFD sans participation any longer. KaisaL (talk) 23:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Live Casino (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 spam. This is not a company that appears to be covered in reliable sources and the article is blatant promotion. I have no idea why the 2014 AFD closed as no consensus since literally no one there supported keeping it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I can not envision any different outcome here.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sindhi vidyalaya (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 school Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 15:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the consensus to keep is not as strong as suggested above. And clearly controversial. Beside that, the sources are very weak so there is doubt about the notability. The Banner talk 15:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus as documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and evidenced by thousands of AfD closures Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is saying "Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability usually get merged or redirected in AfD." This article does not have any source, supporting claim for notability. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is it an elementary or middle school! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, by it's own definition it's a "kindergarten to higher secondary". Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nor has it sources to claim for notability. And it has an ugly smell of advertising. The Banner talk 15:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We all know your opinions on consensus! It only counts if you agree with it. Advertising? Drivel. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is a age old trick to attack the messenger personally when you do not have any valid arguments about the message. The Banner talk 17:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The Banner, your comments are purely disruptive. You are fully aware, and have been for many years (see your 100s of failed mass AfD for schools), of the special exceptions for high schools. If you continue to deliberately disrupt AfD with inappropriate you will find yourself back at ANI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• And you are fully aware of the opposition against that by others, not only me. And I do not like your threatening behaviour to bully me away. The Banner talk 10:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Kudpung The problem which I have with this specific article is that I don't see any source that supports for the claim being a proper high school. As I mentioned article itself states that the establishment is "kindergarten to higher secondary". Probably I don't understand something, but I think that the school can be either kindergarten or high school. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per SCHOOLOUTCOME. Also, move it to Sindhi Vidyalaya Matriculation and Higher Secondary School after closure. Also, not sure why any institute can not be both kindergarten and high school. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, you want to keep the school because earlier schools were kept, which were kept because other schools were kept, which were kept because other schools were kept etc.
  • School outcomes is a summery, not an argument. The Banner talk 10:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! WP:CONSENSUS. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, there is consensus that you in fact gave no arguments for a keep. The Banner talk 11:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So be it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is a summary of consensus! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You know better. The Banner talk 12:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do I indeed?! You do say the most amusing things. You're the only one here who doesn't think there's a consensus. You've been trying to tell us that for ages. It's no more true now than it was last time you said it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is indeed amusing to see that your "consensus" is so established that there are many, many prior discussions over and that Kudpung has to revert to threatening behaviour to silence me and others. And just the hundreds of AfD's about school should be an indication that the so called "consensus" is at least shaky. The Banner talk 13:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of AfDs are just because of people's IDLI attitude. How many of those were started by you? And how many of those actually ended in deletion? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 14:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. The answer is almost none. Not that TB would accept that - his opinion is the only one that matters and clearly he's right and the rest of us are wrong. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try to attack the messenger and bury the message. The Banner talk 17:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "message" would presumably be that since you don't agree with the consensus it clearly isn't a consensus? Consensus does not require 100% agreement. If it did then we would never, ever have any consensus on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with reliable sources. I bet this is regional unbalanced point of view if eventually decided not to keep. Xxjkingdom (talk) 04:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there's still questionability including the fact this is only a private school, thus it's not a local government school. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Privately funded or government funded does not matter as long as it is affiliated with a state-run education board. The board decides the curriculum and the 10th and 12th exams are also taken by the board. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Being a private school is utterly irrelevant to notability. I have no idea why some editors seem to think that state schools are inherently more notable than private schools. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of mobile phone makers by country (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 has no sources to demonstrate that 'the list' is a notable subject as required by WP:LISTN. It merely indiscriminately links to articles without any context whatsoever. This WP:INDISCRIMINATE list has no information and serves no encyclopedic purpose that could not be better accomplished with categories. Also, it has become a nightmare to maintain because IPs from around the world continually add red links and external links, possibly to promote commercial interests. - MrX 11:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - MrX 12:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. - MrX 12:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. - MrX 12:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. - MrX 12:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree that this article would have very little interest for most readers, still the companies are notable and the concept of a list by industry and country seems reasonable and in-line with what's normal for WP. WP:I don't like it either, but keep. Borock (talk)

• Keep - Allowed for now per second paragraph of WP:LISTN. Does not appear to run afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ~Kvng (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All of the companies in this list are notable, so obviously there are sources to prove each one exists, the nominator just hasn't bothered to follow WP:BEFORE and add them to the article. This list seems to be consistent with the purpose of lists, and I don't see what the nom means about WP:INDISCRIMINATE either, it looks fine. Omni Flames (talk) 23:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 14:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chandrajit Banerjee (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)

Unequivocal promo. Article makes two claims to notability: the subject is a director general of an organisation and the subject received a "China-India Friendship" award a few years back. However, both claims are insufficient for WP:ANYBIO. Article is mostly the work of User:Karansharma1, a indeffed as a sock of a promotion-only sockmaster. — kashmiri ^TALK 11:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Head of an exceptionally notable organisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) is an exceptionally notable organization of high importance in India. head of such organization is also notable and moreover, there is significant coverage in the news about the subject. I have found many sources in the Google search and clearly passes WP:GNG.KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 02:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. See this Google Books search. Easily enough sources there to meet WP:GNG, not to mention the fact that he's in charge of an extremely notable organization. Omni Flames (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 21:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I'm having trouble finding anything (apart from adverts) to show the notability of this campsite. — Rod ^talk 10:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nothing more than spam.Charles (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom. Class455fan1 (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nothing at all close to the needed convincing substance, I've found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CoolAutomation (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)

Page was created by a WP:SPA [20]. The references are all non-notable sources. Fails WP:N. CerealKillerYum (talk) 08:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Likely promotional content Ajf773 (talk) 06:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 21:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Unsourced article about a "new" wrestling move. Most of article is about how to do it, but that's not what WP is about. See WP:NOTHOWTO.Mdtemp (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not only not referenced but there is no context. Who has used it? The article is an orphan and a dead end. Notability not established.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I would have recommended merging to Professional wrestling attacks but there isn't enough information to go on based on what we have here.LM2000 (talk) 09:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is a mess, not even sure what it is supposed to.be.  MPJ-DK  23:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I'm not seeing anything similar at all to suggest an actually convincing (substantial) article. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 21:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maripier Morin (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, written with a decidedly advertorial skew, about a person who has valid potential claims of notability -- but nothing here is an automatic pass of any subject-specific inclusion rule, so it would have to pass WP:GNG to become keepable. But with only two sources, a GNG pass has not been achieved here. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better. Bearcat (talk) 03:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I agree with Bearcat here, this article does not pass WP:GNG Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 06:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC) Banned sockHappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable media personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nothing at all nearly enough to suggest anything at all close to the needed substantial coverage for an acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 21:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie Behar Brooks (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)

According to the article, Bonnie Behar Brooks is primarily notable for having written one not very well-known children's book and having produced two short videos of interviews with musicians. Slashme (talk) 17:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't any secondary sources about her. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a case of WP:NOTINHERITED - all of her videos, and even the book, are about her husband, Harvey Brooks (bassist). The book is in zero libraries listed in WorldCat, and I can't confirm or deny the existence of her publisher. The videos are self-published. LaMona (talk) 01:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if she was identified by this name as his wife in the article on Harvey Brooks then it would be reasonable to make a redirect from this name to his article - but "Behar" isn't mentioned there. Because "his wife Bonnie" gets a couple of mentions (and that's the form in which she published the kids book too), I've added a hatnote to Bonnie Brooks for this person. PamD 22:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and I frankly consider this A7 material as I'm not at all convinced by the Smithsonian Archives claims, as she was only pat of it, and in of itself, has nothing else convincing therefore delete is best. SwisterTwister talk 05:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  19:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No independent sources to affirm the notablility of the company. Only company webpages and various PR stuff. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - AVSystem is listed in numerous independend sources, including:

- http://openmobilealliance.org/oma-releases-results-of-lwm2m-testfest-and-opens-next-testfest-registration/ - Article published by Open Mobile Alliance - Leading Industry Forum for Developing Market Driven-Interoperable Mobile Service Enablers due to AVSystem's participation in OMA-TestFest 2015.

-https://tr069.wordpress.com/2015/03/17/avsystem-opens-a-representation-in-latin-america/ - Until Spring 2015, TR-069 Central Blog, run by Max Weltz, was one of the leading information sources according to Telecommunication and TR-069 Management World.

- http://www.computerworld.pl/news/351021/ENFACE.Slawomir.Wolf.html - Interview with Company's CEO Sławomir Wolf, run by well-known magazine Computer World

- http://www.fibaro.com/pl/node/4086 - Summary of Cooperation with Fibaro Group, published on their corporate website by Fibaro Group

AVSystem's notability can be confirmed by its presence at numerous Technology Events, including:

- Mobile World Congress, the world’s largest gathering for the mobile industry, organised by the GSMA (representing the interests of mobile operators worldwide, uniting nearly 800 operators with more than 250 companies in the broader mobile ecosystem, including handset and device makers, software companies, equipment providers and Internet companies, as well as organisations in adjacent industry sectors.) https://www.mobileworldcongress.com/exhibitor/avsystem/

- Communic Asia - an information and communications technology (ICT) exhibition and conference held in Singapore.http://www.communicasia.com/2016/exhibition/list-of-exhibitors/

- Broadband World Forum - The recognised annual meeting for industry leaders in broadband - https://tmt.knect365.com/bbwf/sponsors/avsystem

- TM Forum Live - http://www.tmforumlive.org/get-involved/sponsor-exhibit/

- LTE Series Events - LTE MENA, LTE North America - https://mena.lteconference.com/company/avsystem/ ; https://americas.lteconference.com/company/avsystem/

- Small Cells Conference, London - http://www.scwsworld.com/exhibitors/avsystem

- 5G World Summit - https://5gworldevent.com/company/avsystem/

AVSystem is one of few companies around the world dealing with the industry of device management (source: https://tr069.wordpress.com/2012/10/02/vendors-in-numbers/, 2012). The company has a national coverage cooperating with companies know world-wide (source: https://www.avsystem.com/testimonials/)

In 2015 and 2016 AVSystem was shortlisted during LTE MENA Awards, LTE World Summit and LTE LATAM Awards in the categories of: Best Innovation in HetNet Development,Best HetNet Solution, among companies such as Ericsson, Huawei, ZTE, Spider Cloud & Cisco (source: https://www.avsystem.com/category/news/; https://latam.lteconference.com/lte-sdn-awards-2016-nominees/)

Section about AVSystem's engagement worldwide can be added immediatelyJakub Widomski (talk) 13:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I second tagging for deletion - notoriety is questionable, article is orphaned, sources are for conferences (participation in which would have probably been bought) not from reputable news networks, etc. that would help to confirm the company is well known. Best, Nicnote (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as per http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/9/prweb8813233.htm User:Jakub Widomski seems to be an employee at AVSystem - having written the PR statement? Nicnote (talk) 16:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lack of independent sources, and if they exist I doubt I will find them in the US-based search engines that I have access to. This is a new user, and quite likely without knowledge of @en Wikipedia's policies on conflict of interest, reliable sources, or notability. I have placed COI information on the user's talk page. If this had come through AfC we might have been able to head it off. Jakub Widomski - it isn't because there isn't proof of international engagement. You need to read WP:RS on reliable sources. You cannot use the company's own content, nor blogs, to support the article. Having a logo redesign is not going to support notability. The criteria for companies are at WP:CORP. You need to understand all of these things to create a viable article. LaMona (talk) 01:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and I frankly would've speedied as this is G11 material through and through, containing advertorial information; the sources are nowhere nearly at all convincing so all of this together is certainly enough to delete. SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, there is an external relation with the company which might cause COI. Unfortunatelly, in case of such specialised area of activites, only the person involved with the company (as a worker, customer or partner) could deliver such a specific set of info and details about its history, products, etc. Nonetheless I believe my general understanding of notability was not fully correct in that case, and I will not try to force keeping the article. For future publications, I will gather more reliable secondary sources to prove reliability and notability of the topic. Thank you all for your involvement in my case. Jakub Widomski (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 18:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Haj Ali Ahmed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Completely unsourced biography of a businessman and politician, which consists of a single sentence asserting that he existed but fails to contain any information about him to determine whether he passes our notability rules for businessmen or politicians. Certainly I'm willing to withdraw this if some actual substance and sourcing can be shown to clarify why he might belong in an encyclopedia, but in this state it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The pages that link to him describe him roughly (without citing any sources) as the first President of the Bangladesh Awami League, Comilla [District] branch - i.e. a sub-national party official. I haven't found any proof of this, or evidence that he ever ran for or held elected office at the national or district level. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per nom. No description about person's notability. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 20:06, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete I ran a quick search on: Hazi Ali Ahmed Mia 1992 Here: [21]. Nothing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Liscio Jr (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)

He has two main roles as Clemont in Pokémon XY, and another as a lead role in Yu-Gi-Oh. He's also apparently a stage actor, having performed in renditions of Avenue Q. However, I couldn't find enough significant coverage specifically about him. Are his roles enough to establish notability, or not? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 16:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 16:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 16:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 16:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete His work in Avenue Q is promising and has gotten secondary coverage. [22] [23] but I don't see any coverage for Pokemon or Yu-Gi-Oh! besides the convention announcement which is a primary: [24] It may be a case of WP:TOOSOON on the voice acting side. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with the WP:TOOSOON. Can't find sources to show notability. Esw01407 (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete One for the future perhaps but not convincing at the moment. SephyTheThird (talk) 17:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He is not notable enough for a stand alone article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I have found nothing at all close to independent substantial notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Article speedy deleted under G7. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM 21:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aakriti anand singh (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)

Failing WP:GNG. Article is overloaded with links to social networks with no proper reliable sources. Also the tone of article is highly promotional. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Author hast just G7'd the page. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 18:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 18:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A-1 Trailer Park, Arizona (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; fails WP:GEOLAND. Individual trailer-parks are not inherently notable. Note that this was previously PRODed, but the article creator removed the PROD (passes wp:geoland, whose first sentence says "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable"). They must be referring to the name being listed in the USGS Geographic Names Information System. A entry in that database merely means the name is or has been used on some map; it is not legal recognition - it is just a trivial mention. WP is not a directory; the article is two sentences and is unlikely to be expandable as there is no coverage. Common sense clearly puts this in the WP:GEOLAND category of 'Populated places without legal recognition which are only notable with "non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources" MB 15:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Whatever our relevant local geographical notability standard is, this should clearly be failing it as is. The USGS aren't interested and neither should we be. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Actually, the listing in the USGS system is the standard which marks a place as a legally recognized populated place. It's been the standard throughout Wikipedia for a while now. Not saying I agree with that standard, but it is the standard. The definition from the USGS regarding what populated place means: "Place or area with clustered or scattered buildings and a permanent human population (city, settlement, town, village). A populated place is usually not incorporated and by definition has no legal boundaries. However, a populated place may have a corresponding "civil" record, the legal boundaries of which may or may not coincide with the perceived populated place. Distinct from Census and Civil classes." The USGS clearly marks the class of the named location, and in this instance it is clearly labeled as a "populated place". Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The USGS don't list it (if you search by name). They do list an, "A and F Trailer Court", which is nearby but not at the precise location given here. Is that the same place? Why the name discrepancy? Are we linking the right USGS record? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy Dingley - You're spot on, the article needs to be retitled. I didn't notice the difference in name (sloppy of me), I took it off the list of places in Arizona, and then didn't make the correction. If the consensus is to keep I'll change the name. Don't think it appropriate to change during the course of an AfD discussion. Thanks for pointing it out. But "Court" is the correct appellation. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But is it even the same place being referred to?

I'm OK with keeping any place that the USGS have as a record (it's pointless, but we have to draw a line somewhere). However this article is failing to demonstrate that, no matter what it's called. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bit confused... there's a link in the article to the USGS record. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But is there? The USGS link in the article seems to be to a different place. The name is different, the location is different. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dang, you're right, Andy Dingley - The coordinates were wrong. That's fixed now. As I said, if this is not deleted, I'll correct the name at that point - might be confusing to correct it now. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As someone who's been through quite a few AfDs related to populated places and probably helped establish the USGS standard, this doesn't meet it. Unincorporated places are typically held to that standard, but neighborhoods of a larger city (which the subject is) must be notable in their own right, and even places that are recently-established real estate developments with names aren't necessarily notable on the same level as an established community. This article fails on both counts. (See, for instance, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forks Mobile Home Park, Washington, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waltlou Mobile Home Park, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balle Mobile Home Park, Alabama for some of the relevant precedents around trailer parks in particular.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete It would have to be quite a trailer part; and I see no : [https://www.google.com/#q=%22A-1+Trailer+Park%22&tbm=nws} indication that this one is.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as even if it were renamed, I'm still not convinced there would be enough convincingly to suggest the needed convincing information especially considering "Trailer park" is part of the name, regardless if the name can be changed. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and as failing my standards. There is no evidence of how many people live in this trailer park, so unless it is many thousands, I'd say it's not notable. Bearian (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G3 Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Retail (Manga) (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)

Could find no evidence that this even exists, let alone that it meets WP:GNG. ubiquity (talk) 14:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --ubiquity (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3 - Blatant Hoax. SephyTheThird (talk) 18:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete no such title. No such Fairy Tail character named Mitopai Zhittoppai. There is one for Laxus that came out in July but this isn't it. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per G3, I have gone ahead and tagged the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental Systems Design, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Advert tag has been there since 2012. The page's basically one big ad for the company. They lack any real notability. You'll see tons of references from notable organizations but they're for a job they did and it's not about the company itself. The awards are puffery and nothing substantial. Fails WP:N. CerealKillerYum (talk) 07:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Although they are taken from the German Wikipedia, I like their notability criteria: they require a company to have either at least 1,000 full-time employees or more than €100 million in annual revenues or are traded on an international stock exchange or possess offices in at least 20 different places or possess a monopolistic position within their market segment. Maybe make keeping the article conditional on the demonstration of these notability criteria? --Arbraxan (talk) 10:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 18:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barrie Fire & Emergency Service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article, based on a single primary source with no evidence of reliable source coverage shown at all, about a midsized city's municipal fire department. While a fire department can get an article if it can be shown to pass WP:GNG, it does not get an automatic entitlement to have a Wikipedia article just because it exists -- fire departments exist in virtually every moderately sized town or city on the entire planet, so it takes more than mere existence to justify an encyclopedia article about it. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Bearcat. 2001:569:70DD:7500:285F:F780:A7DA:BAA2 (talk) 03:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there is currently and then also for future uses, nothing at all to suggest its own actually convincing article, so there's therefore nothing to suggest keeping for any actual improvements because there wouldn't be any. SwisterTwister talk 04:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Deleted as a hoax under both G3 and A11. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM 22:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Unremarkable place, unreferenced, highly biased, possible hoax. Please speedy delete. LL212W (talk) 12:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD G3 - obvious hoax, place does not even exist, so that may also qualify for deletion per CSD A11. Hx7 13:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 08:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]