Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 May	26 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orfeo (singer)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:Music - vanity page created by subject with nothing of note justifying an article Rayman60 (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as Rayman60 says, article was created by the subject himself purely for publicity. No reliable sources, fails WP:MUSICBIO. Richard3120 (talk) 23:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches have found nothing better and the current article gives no insinuations of independent notability thus not convincing. SwisterTwister talk 21:30, 1 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 keep. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 00:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Skeete

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

Over 10 year-old article longtime troubled and with my searches finding nothing better at all than a few links at Books and Highbeam, there's also nothing at all for the applicable notability, there's no inherited notability from his "apparent minor celebrity" and "appearances" thus nothing convincing overall. Several of the listed news sources are now locked but the ones available such as the Independent only mention him once with the second Independent link only containing sentences about him instead. Basically there's still simply nothing actually suggesting this can be an acceptable article. I should also note this was actually PRODed in February 2010 by Ealdgyth but removed because it was apparently "general notability". SwisterTwister talk 23:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable although since his fame was largely in the 1990s most coverage is likely not online. This from The Independent is obviously not a brief mention. His fame may have been some time ago, but there's no doubt he was famous/notable enough. Coverage that's online includes [1] ("celebrity show-jumper"), [2] ("champion horseman"), [3], coverage of his role in a Bond film ([4]), he also did a lot of television, including appearing as a celebrity competitor on Gladiators, guested on celebrity panel shows such as They Think It's All Over, and various other appearances. He's a celebrity. He's notable. --Michig (talk) 05:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article needs work, obviously, but I think he meets GNG. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 10 year old article, has sources, is delightfully quirky. May not meet GNG solely on acting or equestrianism, but the combination of the two: Priceless. Adequate indicia of notability, if in the form of notoriety. Montanabw ^(talk) 06:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of Design, Image and Communication (El Bosque University )

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

Does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. El Bosque University is notable enough to have a (stub) article, but notability is not inheirited. PROD removed by author without specifying a reason. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 22:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 22:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 22:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We usually don't have separate articles for individual academic units within universities, except in unusual circumstances, which do not appear to be present here. Nsk92 (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Corrected link in my nomination. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 01:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: RA0808 is right: the university is notable but the individual faculty doesn't pass WP:ORG. The editor who created the article and dePRODded it has a COI: he's employed by the university faculty as its "social communicator"... in other words, it's his job to market the faculty. Richard3120 (talk) 04:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The general rule at AfD is that individual departments are not notable, except for the most prestigious or gigantic universities (Ivy League, Oxbridge, universities with 30,000 students enrolled, etc.). This faculty and this University is not so exceptional as to merit its own article. Bearian (talk) 13:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing suggesting the independent notability from the school itself to suggest its own article. SwisterTwister talk 21:44, 1 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

George Kennedy (rancher)

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

Where is the WP:N? Father of a Secretary of the Treasury, so what? Article mention he was a legislator. From where? For how long? No sources to indicate notability or to back the infos that are already there. Delete. Coltsfan (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ It doesn't seem like you've read WP:POLITICIAN. As a member of the Utah state legislature, he is notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And you should read WP:V. Coltsfan (talk) 23:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In your nomination rationale, you asked where is the N? "Article mention (sic) he was a legislator. From where? For how long?" I'm pointing out that the duration of his term in office is besides the point. As for verifiability, the most I've been able to ascertain online is that someone matching his name was a "doorkeeper" for the Utah state house, which for all I know could be an employee of the house rather than an elected official, as in this federal example. The article does have a source which is said to back up the claim, and the policy WP:SOURCEACCESS states that we are not to reject offline sources but rather WP:AGF. That said, I can't see contesting this Afd on such weak grounds so I withdraw my !vote. If someone else can verify that this fellow was indeed elected to the statehouse, I guess I'd return to keep. But the vagueness of the claim "legislator" does make me think that he was simply employed by the house, at most. Support Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it's tough weeding out references to the actor... FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 12:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not clear from the article how this is possibly notable, and I can't find anything after a Google search. All I can find are references to his son David, and being the parent of someone notable is not notable. Shelbystripes (talk) 21:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unless somebody can locate proper confirmation that he was actually a member of the Utah state legislature, as things stand right now it does indeed look like somebody either misrepresented or misunderstood the distinction between a member of the legislature and an employee of the legislature — and nothing else claimed here entitles him to an exemption from having to pass WP:GNG on the volume and quality of reliable source coverage, which a namecheck on one page of one book does not demonstrate. So I'm willing to reconsider this if somebody can WP:HEY it up with better referencing to properly verify that he was actually a state legislator, but in this state it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of verifiability; see this official website. Bearian (talk) 13:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC) Pinging Bearcat, no relation, and Shawn_in_Montreal. Bearian (talk) 13:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as by far nothing at all for actual independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:47, 1 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 Deleted (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 21:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Chapman (Attorney)

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

Unnotable lawyer who fails WP:GNG. Most of the references given either don't mention her or only mention her in passing. Nothing substantial about her found. Nthep (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable and reads like a promo piece for business. This is not Martindale Hubbell. Kierzek (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, has not been involved in any cases that have shaped policy. Scant information can be found online. Winning local top 100 lawyers in a very small community isn't notable, nor is an Arvo rating.Allaboutjane8181 (talk) 00:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is nothing I can find that is in-depth enough for WP:GNG.--CNMall41 (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This basically read like an add trying to get you to hire Chapman if you are accused of a crime. Unless of corse the "very familiar with prosecutors and judges" is meant to imply something downright scandalous, and then we have to delete it on BLP grounds, but I think in this case it was just an odd turn of phrase to increase the advertising potential of the page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I doubt that simply any criminal lawyer out there is entitled to his/her own article based only on experience. No cases which have garnered significant attention and information about this person is scarce. Lacks notability. Reads very much like a self-promotional bit. KelseyWill (talk) 00:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nominated for speedy deletion as the creation of sock of an indeffed user, Boskit190, almost certainly a PROMO and undisclosed paid piece. Hope this is proper procedure, if not you can chalk it up to IAR. Brianhe (talk) 14:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - experienced but NN attorney. Bearian (talk) 13:10, 1 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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colleen McGill

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

Extensive COI and POV over the existence of this article. However, most of the given sources are either first party or industry sources, with few reliable sources outside the industry to indicate notability. Subject appears to fail WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. PROD declined by SPA who is likely either the subject of the article or a close associate of the subject. Safiel (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After removing all the peacockery from SPAs Designgirlatschool, FanciestNancy, Designexpert and Jamesrosenthal (who all failed to disclose their COI, BTW) this article is now a stub that says McGill runs an interior design firm and that her work has been featured in a number of magazines, books and TV shows. Not a single one of the sources says anything about her or her work other than "we suggest that you buy this". That is not substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources. There is nothing in the sources that establishes the subjects' notability. As for the COI, at least one of the user names bears a striking resemblance to McGills fiancé at the time according to the Globe and Mail. Mduvekot (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is probably the only somewhat reliable source talking about her. All other sources either contain a single line mention of her or are self published sources. Fails WP:GNG and nothing indicates why the subject is notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:05, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the bad faith editing, it seems the intention is to simply promote the subject. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all here convincing for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The general conclusion is that this insult / social phenomenon is not sufficiently notable. Der yck C. 17:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bajingan

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

Per WP:NOTDICT. This relatively obscure Javanese word shows little coverage in reliable sources, and is likely impossible to expand beyond the dictionary defintion of how the term is used (regardless of its pejorative connotations). —^0xF₈E₈ (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 21:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 21:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NN. It's nothing more than a Javanese/Indonesian term of abuse, so WP:NOTDIC too. Davidelit (Talk) 04:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's nothing actually acceptable for a Wikipedia encyclopedia article, currently acceptable by all means. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's difficult to gauge the coverage because almost all of the sources I see on google scholar are, expectedly, in Indonesian. Until an editor with a knowledge of the language comes here to evaluate them, we'll have to go by the ones in English, no matter how slim they might be. The title of one of them suggests that the bajingan are a social group that is relevant in the dynamics of power in rural Indonesia. Also, one of the two references given in the article is about a Bajingan Festival. Even if such a festival is a recent creation of the tourism industry, it still points in the direction of an underlying cultural significance. Uanfala (talk) 10:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Uanfala: your link to Google Scholar returns a 403 error when I click on it. Could you provide a citation of the work you have in mind? Cnilep (talk) 08:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, here's the citation:

Ashari, L., 2003. Power Sharing Between the Kyai, Bajingan and the Village Head. Mimeo. World Bank Office Jakarta. Uanfala (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found several books or articles discussing the word qua word, but they were mainly treatments of swearing or joking in Javanese or Indonesian, or else works in translation theory. The treatment of the word in English doesn't seem to rise to the level of Ain't or Nigger, though of course such work might be published in Indonesian. Cnilep (talk) 08:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable for a stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If bajingan isn't notable as a swear word, I'm wondering what 0xF8E8 and Davidelit might think about its other meaning as a social/cultural class of the rural population. Uanfala (talk) 23:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the sources currently stand, it would be better covered in an article on Indonesian social classes. I agree a fuller examination of the Indonesian sources is necessary. My main concern right now is that this entry doesn't seem like it's going to be anything more than a dictionary definition, but coverage in Indonesian sources may convince me otherwise. I tried pasting some of the Scholar titles into Google Translate to get an idea of what they're covering, but it largely came out a jumbled mess. For now, I guess we'll have to wait until an Indonesian speaker comes along. —^0xF₈E₈ (talk) 00:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the social class definition still fails WP:SIGCOV. Incidentally I can't find it on the World Bank website. Incidentally 2: the Indonesian Wikipedia Bajingan article is mostly about oxcart drivers. All in all I still vote for delete, as above. Davidelit (Talk) 01:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SNOW Redirect all and I will be moving them all momentarily (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 21:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of current champions in Global Force Wrestling

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

In the same tradition of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Global Force Wrestling personnel and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Force Wrestling tournaments, Global Force Wrestling is barely a promotion. Lacks the WP:SIGCOV for all of these separate articles. While GFW may be notable, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. LM2000 (talk) 19:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the articles listed in that list:

All but one of these championships only has one champion so the information is easily contained at the main article. The championships were crowned at the taping of GFW Amped, where most of the sources used in these articles come from; not only can notability be not inherited from Amped, but Amped also got deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GFW Amped.LM2000 (talk) 20:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions.LM2000 (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to main article and protect to prevent recreation. GFW itself is somewhat notable, but none of the championships therein have attracted any separate attention or coverage. Protection suggested based on the repeated attempts by myself and others to redirect the original GFW World Heavyweight Championship page (now a redirect to the Global Championship article) to the main article (diffs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8) per WP:GNG, and also per WP:CRYSTAL because at that time these were mostly before the org had even put on a show. --Finngall ^talk 21:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all, and protect per Finngall. oknazevad (talk) 21:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to the main article --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could the closing admin also redirect GFW Amped to Global Force Wrestling#GFW Amped? Thanks.LM2000 (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main article. Kierzek (talk) 22:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the list at the top of the nomination, because it is already covered in the article. The other four articles are not notable enough so should also be redirected, but a brief description of each championship should probably be added to the main article. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW and as a speedy deletion since this is almost certainly another Easter sock. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drive Hard (British film)

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

A low-budget film by one Paul TT Easter, this film does not as yet meet WP:NFILM. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this film appears to be a minute and a half long and published on Vimeo. I can't find any sources talking about it other than IMDB, and even the blog post in the article doesn't mention the film at all. Fails WP:NFILM. Hut 8.5 21:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable; fails WP:NFILM, as noted above. Kierzek (talk) 22:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete per failing WP:NF and at kindest being TOO SOON. If this 90 seconds ever receives coverage to meet guidelines, it can always be resurrected. While this is nice, it is not nearly enough. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to close this out - it seems to be another Easter sock. His name has actually been blacklisted on Wikipedia, so that's why his name likely isn't in the article itself. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Kessler

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

Non notable musician. Koala15 (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:MUSICBIO in every way, no notability at all and nothing suitable found online. Artist doesn't appear to have performed solo, just with other bands. No references, the external links are just places to buy the CDs online or the artists' own websites... two of them are dead anyway.
Delete, does not meet GNG. Kierzek (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 21:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Faanya Rose

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

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

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

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

Not too sure if this is even notable. TJH2018 talk 18:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, overall has done enough with notable coverage for an article per GNG. With that said, not a strong contender for a stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A Milestone for Women This article has been thoroughly researched and sourced. This woman lived in the shadows of men, yet rose to take the reins of the highly prestigious Explorers Club. The significance is perhaps lost on men, but not on women. As the author, and a woman, and someone who is not a feminist, I would suggest that Wikipedia is poorer for deleting such an article. A quick search of Wikipedia reveals a number of biographic entries of male "explorers' with much less noteworthiness. Considering "Notes" above I am curious as a new author -- Are the postings to other deletion discussions the best ones for this subject? Lynda Roy (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynda Roy (talk • contribs) 19:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Comment - Recommendation Context for the Faanya Rose article would come from a robust The Explorers Club article, an entry that requires attention. Given the helpful input from knowledgeable Wikipedians on Faanya Rose, I am considering a focused effort on The Explorers Club. Lynda Roy (talk) 00:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are enough sources out there for the article to pass GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable. Good sources. Provides historical insight previously not available Laceyflint (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)— Laceyflint (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Reasonable sourcing; fulfills WP:GNG requirements if nothing else. _Muffled ^Pocketed
Keep Reading through the article and sources provided in the article it would appear that the subject does pass WP:GNG. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - presidents of the Explorers Club appear to be inherently notable, and she was verifiably both the first female and first British president. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At first glance, Keep — appears to have ongoing coverage in a variety of reliable sources. Goldenshimmer (talk) 16:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. but remove material about the accomplishments of other members of her family and other material relevant to a personal web site, but not to an encyclopedia . DGG ( talk ) 19:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - in the case of women of this era, accomplishments of family are key to grooming to compete successfully in the business and social spheres. This individual had really no real college or apprenticeships to prepare her for roles as an executive or a nonprofit leader except those close relationships to the success of father and husband. As she herself has said (one of the footnotes) people today do not understand that the point was to get married. Regarding personal website, once this person dies, if not recorded here I am thinking, these relationships will be lost, and with them the context of her achievements. Lynda Roy (talk) 21:38, 1 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mafini

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

Different language. Adotchar (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Content is also complete nonsense (though doesn't fit neatly into a speedy deletion category). Google Translate reveals it to be a conspiracy theory about Nokia and American muffins/dog food. The page creator's edit summary is also telling. (Fixed signature markup problem above.)הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think an explanation is necessary. Meatsgains (talk) 03:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I would've basically speedied, nothing at all convincing. SwisterTwister talk 07:36, 2 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shin-Toshi

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

Non-notable martial art. Only claims are self-referenced with no indication of notability. The only independent source is a one line listing of martial arts. There is no significant independent coverage of this art.Mdtemp (talk) 18:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. A bunch of puffery cited to self-published sources. It's from the US and it's been around for half a century; if it were notable it should be easy to find multiple non-trivial discussions, but Google Books searches [5][6] only finds two trivial mentions and two trademark applications. (N.B. "shin toshi" has unrelated meanings in Japanese like "new city" so if you just search for that you'll get mostly mis-hits). 210.6.254.106 (talk) 07:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The hyperbole was worse earlier. Calling the martial art the first official American and mixed martial art (possibly a fundamental misunderstanding by the original editor) without supporting refs only raises suspicion that there is a bit of invention going on. Extraordinary claims require support and in this case should be easy to find. No vote yet - hope to give a chance for them to be found.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no supporting evidence to back up the claim of being the first American martial art. My search found no significant independent coverage of this style nor is any given in the article. Papaursa (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this never insinuates any basic notability signs, nothing at all convincing. SwisterTwister talk 07:35, 2 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Global Force Wrestling tournaments

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

Article that just contains some wrestling tournament results. The only sources are routine sports coverage and there's no indication of notability and no significant independent coverage. No objection to redirecting or merging this article into the promotion's article.Mdtemp (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and also delete List of current champions in Global Force Wrestling and every title listed there. GFW is barely a promotion, none of the splinter articles meet WP:GNG requirements; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Global Force Wrestling personnel.LM2000 (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated those for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of current champions in Global Force Wrestling.LM2000 (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't undertstand this promotion. Articles like WWE, but is lesser than Maryland Championship Wrestling... just a very hyped promotion. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's currently nothing at all here suggesting its own separately notable article. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 2 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. Noting also the concerns about Wikipedia being used for promotional purposes. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala State Business Excellence Awards

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

An article about a non-notable award which was created by an editor who has a clear COI. One of the references used for example is this advertorial in a reliable source which incidentally mentions the Wikipedia page as well. I don't see any evidence of notability and for all its worth, this article is being used for promotion. Suggest a TNT. Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No apparent notability and WP:TNT applies with approximately one megaton... --Randykitty (talk) 17:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with prejudice. Sourcing to their own advertisement, which in turn mentions this article, is some of the most barefaced abuse of Wikipedia for promotional purposes that I've seen. Oh, and non-notable. Bishonen | talk 10:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Bishonen....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected to Malibu, CA (TV series) by creator. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 17:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Merszei

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

Actor's only role to date was in the main cast of the obscure syndicated sitcom Malibu, CA (1998–2000), so fails WP:NACTOR. Considering the dearth of sourcing about this show itself, subject certainly fails WP:GNG as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Followup comment – an article devoted to Malibu, CA castmate Brandon Brooks was just deleted at AfD. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This has already been redirected to Malibu, CA (TV series), which seems like a reasonable outcome. The AFD for Brandon Brooks doesn't have anything at all to do with this article, since each actor is different. One might have had additional roles that the other lacked, for example. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I brought up the Brandon Brooks case because Merszei has significantly fewer credits than Brooks does – thus, if Brooks is AfD'able, then Merszei certainly is. However, if the article's creator has boldly converted article into a redirect, I would gladly see this AfD nom procedurally closed as "moot". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Moving into WP:SNOW territory! Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interaction without interaction

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

I'm honestly struggling to figure out what the point of this page is. It seems, on the surface, to be a retelling of Interaction-free measurement, but then it goes off the rails a bit. The references have nothing to do with the subject, but rather seem to be used as vague verification for the theories proposed (and with the exception of the unpublished paper, none of them mention "interaction without interaction"). It's a bit more scientific than pure FRINGE, but it's definitely not a solid enough theory to be included on Wikipedia. Primefac (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Waleswatcher (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until sufficient—and sufficiently—relevant wp:secondary sources support—or at least mention—it. - DVdm (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#OR - Seems to be one person posting there proposed theory on Wikipedia. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I initially tagged for G2, but it was denied by an admin. I don't see how it contributes as an article to Wikipedia. Also as per Fountains of Bryn Mawr. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Optakeover, G2 is for test pages. This is a full article, even if the source is questionable. I debated tagging it A11 (made up by creator) but it's not a completely bonkers page. Primefac (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand that. That's why my vote here is not a speedy delete. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 18:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I was just mentioning the differences in case you were wondering why the G2 was removed. Primefac (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I thought about speedying this. Another author publicising his own pet theory, WP:NOT#OR indeed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could not find any discussion of "interaction without interaction" on google, google scholar, google books, etc. I will change my vote if other editors can show me that this topic is discussed in reliable sources, but until then, I think deletion is the way to go. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inadequate sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Logically incoherent titles ("X without X") can only possibly be accepted if there is overwhelming evidence that the logical incoherency is in widespread use (like "Cheap at half the price"). Imaginatorium (talk) 03:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#OR - the editor seems to have created the article about his own work in science which is not published and every link is to his own data. DeVerm (talk) 00:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#OR - not notable. Google Scholar search gives 1 hit, but has not any citations. No other sources like magazine articles independent on the author (which has created the theory) could be found. Kryomaxim(talk)

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. Clearly a fake article made up to impress a member of the opposite sex. Uncle G (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Elizabeth's Day

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

Fails WP:GNG for lack of available sources. - Mr X 14:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete As either a hoax, or something the author made up. I can't find any sources to show this "day" exists, let alone a "Lady Elizabeth of Honduras". RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly speedily. Seems to be completely made up, could be a joke or hoax. No sign of existence or sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Day without debts

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

Apparently made up holiday. Fails WP:GNG for lack of independent sources. - Mr X 14:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Nothing about it online apart from a few blog posts mentioning that it exists. OnionRing (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really a holiday. If one searches for sources in English, one is doing it wrong. There are quite a lot of articles, but they all seem to be simple regurgitations of press releases from the organization behind the event. Uncle G (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:Notability (events) and such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's nothing particularly at all to actually suggest solid independent notability as its own article. SwisterTwister talk 07:20, 2 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. Noting also the concerns that this article is a hoax. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Craik

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

Does not appear to meet general notability guidelines or specifically WP:NHOCKEY guidelines Alaney2k (talk) 14:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: G3 as a hoax article. Holy crap, did this one fall through the cracks, given that it was created four years ago. In any event, I see no evidence that this chump exists. The two "sources" both link to a Calgary co-ed rec league, and neither actually mention him. No team named the "Phantoms" has existed in the NAHL in seven years, and in any event the NAHL a Junior A league for which someone born in 1990 would have aged out of well before 2012. No "Jonathan Craik" comes up in the Internet Hockey Database listings, and IHDB covers levels down to teenage amateurs and semi-pros. No "Jonathan Craik" ever played for the University of Calgary or for the Horse Lake Chiefs. Article created by a SPA for whom this was his only edit. Ravenswing 04:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. And Ravenswing may well be correct about it being a hoax, in which case speedy delete would be appropriate. Rlendog (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Can't find any mention anywhere about him. Pretty positive its a hoax. -DJSasso (talk) 11:06, 1 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zephyr (Tornado Outbreak)

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

Unreferenced article about character from video game, no indication of notability outside of the game itself, and appears to be entirely WP:Original research. OnionRing (talk) 13:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following page on another character from the game, for the same reasons as above:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 13:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 13:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 03:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - both Nimbus (Tornado Outbreak) and Zephyr (Tornado Outbreak). These are game character articles of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in independent references. The game is notable (see Tornado Outbreak) and there are incidental references to the character in articles on the game including http://www.ign.com/articles/2009/10/05/tornado-outbreak-review, but this is not enough to establish stand-alone notability of a character. The only ref provided for either article is a one-sentence description of the character from ign - still too brief.Dialectric (talk) 04:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: With the complete lack of coverage in our list of reliable sources, the character is not notable and the article fails WP:GNG. AdrianGamer (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep; nomination withdrawn and abundance of support for keeping. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Byron Good

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

No references supporting the text. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've found several citations to confirm subject notability, most of which have been added to the article. Article has been reduced and restructured according to Biographies of Living Persons guidelines. I've tagged a few needed citations, perhaps these statements should be removed if they cannot be verified. Nickknack00 (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 23:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. A tenured Harvard professor with over 8000 GS citations not notable? Nominator deserves a WP:Trout. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note that when I nominated it, it was an unreferenced newly written BLP.[7]. Agree this should have been a WP:BLPPROD rather than a WP:AFD. Not that someone has referenced the article happy to see this closed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article was not in great shape and still needs work, but the subject is certainly academically notable. GS results are high, he was an editor-in-chief of a reasonably high-profile journal (Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry), gave a named lecture at Oxford in 2010, served as President of a scholarly society (although not a super big one) in 2013-2015, and edited a bunch of books. Overall, enough here to pass WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

E Fashion Wholesale Ltd.

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

Non-notable company. Tagged for speedy but tag removed (by editor other than author) with no explanation. So, bringing here instead. The references given are of the press-release / advertorial variety, and do not represent significant independent coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The given references on this WP:SPA article do not meet the WP:RS norms and I am seeing nothing better about this firm: nothing on Highbeam and just the usual social media on Google. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH; should really be a CSD A7. AllyD (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I also suggest this as A7 material, nothing at all convincing including minimally better. SwisterTwister talk 20:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Stafford

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

No notability. Very minor acting roles. His business and his role in it are not covered by independent sources - searching just brings up pr sources. Polequant (talk) 12:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Due to failing WP:NACTOR and being unsourced. Question is how this has survived since 2007? Gricehead (talk) 12:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources given in article or found in web search (a bit found about DRYVRS, but insufficient even there). --GRuban (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I would've nominated it myself and perhaps consider PROD instead, quite noticeable from all this showing nothing at all for actual independent notability, only a few works and nothing else. SwisterTwister talk 18:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on current sourcing (and attempts above), especially for a BLP. Widefox; talk 22:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article as it stands today is substantially improved from the one that was nominated. The argument that the sources are disguised press releases has not been convincingly made. J04n(talk page) 15:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tally Solutions

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

I considered speedy but it may be removed so here we are again, this is still questionable for any applicable solid notability, WP:CORP and WP:GNG. It's interesting to note the article was deleted after the 1st AfD but has now been restarted earlier this hour. Notifying g the only still active AfDer Andy Dingley. SwisterTwister talk 03:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:SwisterTwister User:Andy_Dingley - The article needs more references, not a debate for deletion. Result of the previous debate for deletion was keep - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tally_Solutions

Hey guys here's some "solid notability" for you - http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapid=21842119 Akshaylike (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete We are not here to be a business directory, nor unpaid advertorial. Tally Solutions is a real business, but why is it an encyclopedic business? The article is not showing this, I see no reason to believe that it could ever show this.

I would also list the one-liner article Shyam Sunder Goenka for AfD too. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include, but are not limited to the bylined news articles and other sources listed below. See also: WP:NEXIST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Live Mint
"Business Strategy: A Case of Tally Solutions Pvt. Ltd.". CMRD Journal of Management Research. pp. 56–59.
Business Standard
The Times of India
Business Standard
The Hindu
Business India. pp. 24–. (subscription required)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Who deleted this article when all previous AfD's resulted in a "Keep"? ~~Also, why are two editors signing the same text?~~ DeVerm (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this passes WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. I just had a look at this and it seems they have been getting coverage over a sustained period of time. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete most of the sources in the article and in the list above are light re-dressed press releases. I note the by line on this one: "BS Reporter". The one really good source here is CMRD Journal of Management ResearchJytdog (talk) 06:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reading the actual articles proposed as references, they are either just announcements or press releases. Unfortunately, many Indian newspaper carry such disguised press releases as if they were articles, and are therefore unreliable sources for the notability of a company. IF there's any doubt about this, just read them. Many just contain a quote from the founder of the firm. The main contents of the article is his tale of how he just so happened to get the idea for the business, which is just fluff--whatever he decided to tell his press agent. DGG ( talk ) 22:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: For starters, how is the "Business Strategy: A Case of Tally Solutions Pvt. Ltd." source an "announcement" or "press release"? It certainly is not. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

You are right about that one. Ifthere are more like it, the firm would be notable. DGG ( talk ) 15:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 12:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There look to be an awful lot of sources in recognizable sources. Some, even perhaps most, might be press releases or derived from press releases, but it doesn't look like all of them are. As much as I don't like linking to a company's website for press links, they've archived many that are not longer available. See here and here. It's a mix of unimpressive, somewhat promotional, and seemingly legitimate sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability, schmotability - what matters to me that this reads as advertising and needs a dose of WP:TNT; it can then perhaps be recreated in a more neutral manner. Sandstein 06:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup for NPOV. The article is full of promotional fluff, but the sources are there to satisfy WP:CORP and specifically WP:AUD - in fact, for a South Asian business (where traditionally it's hard to find truly independent sources for the reasons mentioned by DGG above), this is actually quite a wide spread of online references attesting to this company's market-leader status in its home country. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 10:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable company and product and certainly qualifies GNG. However, the page needs to be cleaned up. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The articles listed here by Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) from Mint, Business Standard, and The Hindu demonstrate that Tally Solutions passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. I've reviewed Tally Solutions and found the article to be neutrally written so this should not be deleted under WP:TNT or WP:NOTADVERTISING. Cunard (talk) 17:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did not see an answer to my earlier question on who deleted this article when previous AfD's resulted in a keep. I have checked this now and found that it was speedy deleted last year. This was done against the guidelines for WP:SPEEDY which states: If a page has survived its most recent deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations and pages that meet specific uncontroversial criteria; these criteria are noted below. The speedy delete was done under the criteria A7 and G11 and these are -not- listed as these "specific uncontroversial criteria". The conclusion is therefor that the article should have been undeleted. DeVerm (talk) 22:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I fixed the article with better writing and more sources. Obviously notable - look at the hundreds of training classes for the software. Once this discussion is over I'll add an infobox and logo. Side note - it was in need of a tune-up, but it's surprising how many votes there are to delete. Maybe people need to slow down - a hasty delete vote goes against everything we are doing here.Timtempleton (talk) 23:33, 4 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. states without major sports teams

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

Article is a great deal of WP:OR and goes off into tangents about NASCAR and other non-team sports.

...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is a trivia question masquerading as an encyclopedic list, like U.S. states without a desert. It's simply not a statewide issue, and as such, doesn't get any real press coverage. (Cities are another story.) Also delete Canadian provinces without major sports teams. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Miss Universe countries

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

Nearly unsourced article that looks like fancruft and WP:OR The Banner talk 16:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not seeing anything here that couldn't be (or already is) duplicated in the country-specific articles. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per WP:LISTPURP. With 6,010 page views the page has received in the last thirty days, a quite significant number, this is a functional navigational aid and valuable information source. The article is also very easily verifiable via simple news and book searches. See also WP:NOIMPROVEMENT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Easy to be done with a click-robot. Do you have any comments content-wise? The Banner talk 09:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some cross checking confirms that the content is accurate, so it's not original research, and "fancruft" is not a valid rationale for deletion. The page has received 128,747 page views between 7/1/2015 to 5/24/2016, and sharply spiked shortly after Miss Universe 2015 that occurred on 20 December 2015, with 22,560 page views on one day alone, on 21 December 2015. Definitely qualifies for an article per WP:LISTPURP, and deletion serves no purpose other than to remove a valuable information source and navigational aid from the encyclopedia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Do you have any arguments content-wise? The Banner talk 21:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 11:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per North America. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Content is largely verifiable, though the article certainly calls for additional sources and references. Also, this list provides information to readers not present in the Miss Universe article. It is not repetitive, and it passes WP:LISTPURP. --Dps04 (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of renegadepress.com episodes#Season 1 (2004). (non-admin closure) ansh 666 20:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Out in the Open (renegadepress.com)

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

Plot-only summary of a television episode, which is sourced only to the show's own self-published production website and features no reliable source coverage or real world context to demonstrate that it can be considered a notable television episode. As always, all episodes of all television shows do not automatically qualify for their own standalone articles; notability as a standalone topic has to be demonstrated, and otherwise they qualify only for a brief plot summary in an episode list. Redirect to List of renegadepress.com episodes. Bearcat (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and redirect per the nominator's suggestion. I'm not sure why this is in AfD if the nominator just wants to redirect. Just be WP:BOLD. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 18:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 11:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1 North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rubik's Magic: Master Edition

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

Needs to be merged with Rubik's Magic. Dr. Neurosis (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 11:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted as G11.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mondago

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

Company is not notable, I can find no reliable sources and those on the article are insufficient to establish any sort of notability. Nik thestunned 10:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Company may or may not be notable, but it's products are. They are used by many (perhaps as much as half) of the PBX manufacturers and as a result many users are using the software, mostly without knowing so.

Also the company is, by far, the global leading authority on PBX/CTI integration. No-one else comes close to provide as many PBX integrations. (http://www.mondago.com/pbx) They are also a leading authority on the TAPI protocol. However, for contractual reasons, most of this work is deliberately private. — Socnet (talk • contribs) 11:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You got any third party sources to support this? I can't find any reliable sources for their products either (not that the would inherit that notability anyways). Nik thestunned 11:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to search for "Mondago" and not "Tiger Software", I guess. I found quite a few within a short period of looking. You can mostly tell them from the "privacy policy" references or legal texts. But here are three different kinds of reference (search on the page for "Mondago"):

Savance

Samsung

SpliceCom

— Socnet (talk • contribs) 17:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases are not reliable sources and are not any indication of notability. Nik thestunned 16:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they are not an indication of "notability" but also note that it's not their (Mondago's) press release. It is just one reference of someone (SpliceCom in this case) who claim to use their technology. The other references (also by Mondago's apparent customers) are again just a couple of the high profile companies that use their technology. --Socnet (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Lawrence McGillvary

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

This is going to be a bit of an interesting nomination and a little bit of a complicated one. Long story short, I created the article a few years ago and I had assumed at the time that the coverage for the crime would be enough to overcome concerns about notability and WP:ONEEVENT. There was also some optimistic (albeit misplaced) assertion that the trial would occur soon and the WP:NCRIME concerns brought up by NorthBySouthBaranof would become moot.

Since then the trial has yet to occur and I've become more familiar in general with BLP and NCRIME, enough to where I really don't think that Kai would currently pass notability guidelines. He's received coverage for the initial "Kai the hatchet-wielding hitchhiker" news video, but he hasn't actually been tried for the murder yet and I'm not exactly sure when it'll happen, although of course it likely will. (There are some exceptions here and there, but by large everyone has their day in court.) This means that we can't really use the coverage for the crime as justification for an article and the coverage of his news video isn't really deep enough to cleanly pass on that criteria alone. I also have to note that for a period of time there seems to have been Kai supporters using the page as a place to promote their cause, although that's declined over the last few years.

I also based my argument on the fact that Kai had continued to gain coverage for the news video itself within the same year, but since then the coverage for the video has been almost nonexistent and when he is covered (which is rare now) it's for the murder and it's usually by the same source, NJ.com. This doesn't really show a good depth of coverage. There was initially quite a bit of coverage for the news video, but it was all from the same time period.

I asked about this at BLP/N last month, where I asked the advice of DGG, who felt that the article as it currently stands shows no lasting importance. (Pinging him so he can know about the AfD.)

What I'm essentially lobbying for is for this to be deleted or sent to the draftspace/userspace until the trial occurs, upon which point this can be re-created. Basically, I now feel that my argument at the last AfD was flawed and this AfD is a chance to rectify this until more coverage comes about. It's likely that he will gain more coverage, but we can't guarantee that if he was tried tomorrow that it wouldn't just end in a quiet resolution without much attention from the media. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the nominator says-- no lasting importance; furthermore , he has not yet been convicted of a crime. Not strictly one event, but still a violation of BLP and WP:TABLOID. BLP applies everywhere in WP; at least the principles of BLP surely do, though I have argued elsewhere that it is not entirely clear to what extent all the detailed provisions and interpretations apply outside mainspace in particular situations. However, I think that having this sort of material as an article draft, whether in user space or draft space, is an example of where it does apply with the same rigour. And I think I would still oppose an article on this even if he were convicted, on the basis of NOT TABLOID and BLP CRIME. DGG ( talk ) 19:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair - I have no objections to this being deleted entirely and remaining deleted. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, and a barnstar to Tokyogirl79 for taking a fresh and self-critical look at whether this topic can really be written about encyclopedically. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's nothing at all actually convincing of a solidly keepable article, still questionable and with nothing else convincing here, Delete. SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 2 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. I did not place any weight on the 'keep' argument as it was not based on Wikipedia's article policies and guidelines. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shreya Ghoshal Shraddhyanjali

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

Non-notable poetry. The editor is creating article on the poet on other Wikipedias as well. I have searched on Google and using this tool, I am unsure about its notability. Tito Dutta (talk) 10:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:POETRYSTANDARDS (assuming this is a single poem). This seems to be an attempt at promotion. There is a Twitter account (18 followers) and a Facebook page (166 likes) which makes me question its claimed popularity. Of course, I couldn't find any reliable sources for this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteClearly a non-notable poem with an intention to promote the poet. The poet himself tried to promote his biography twice. This article has been deleted in Bengali and Simple Enlish Wikipedia also. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - World famous singer Shreya, a tribute to her, this poem is shown in google search. Awesome article. Chandasmani (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please show the reliable sources to prove it is notable? Please also see WP:NOTINHERITED. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above fails WP:GNG.-- H^akan·IST 08:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Omer Farooq

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

Fails WP:BASIC with no in-depth secondary sources, just a short WP:NEWSPRIMARY interview describing him as someone who "may not be a household name (yet)". No suggestion that he meets the "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows" of WP:NACTOR - article mentions ~~no roles at all~~ only his "acting debut" in an unclear role in a series which hasn't aired yet. McGeddon (talk) 09:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's simply TOOSOON for them. For reference, I believe the nominator was referencing this story with regard to his not-quite-yet fame. However, given that Feb 2016 has come and gone, and I can't find anything significant, maybe TOOSOON turned into MAYBENOT? Primefac (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a note, there is a draft being worked on by the same creator (who has claimed on IRC to be paid for this venture), so I suggest we delete this post-haste and let them go through the proper AFC channels. Primefac (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: definitely WP:TOOSOON as the programme doesn't air until June. Agree with Primefac, delete this article; the editor can work on the draft at leisure and submit it to AfC if and when it's ready. Richard3120 (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON as nothing has been released yet, there is plenty of time for an article after at least two prominent or well reported roles. Also, IMO paid editing shouldn't be allowed as it encourages non- neutral, promotional coverage and COI Atlantic306 (talk) 04:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pernom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Can Do Crew

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

I came across this as an A7, however this doesn't look to be a webseries or website per se, rather it's an as of yet unreleased DVD series. If it has released I can find no record of it. There's nothing on the Internet about this project and from what I can gather from their Facebook page, this is likely a very small production.

It has crossed my mind that this might be a hoax. For example, their production company's website claims that it has various DVDs for sale, but none of them are actually posted in their storefront and I have to question their ability to sell episodes of Caillou, Little Bear, and Bananas in Pajamas, given that they're all licensed. If they are legitimate then they're treading on very dangerous ground because if they're selling DVDs they're making themselves (ie, not stuff they purchase from other sellers for resale), then they're running the risk of facing legal action as bootleggers. It's never really a good idea to go about advertising that sort of thing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a small production, then I have to caution them that Wikipedia is not the place to raise awareness for your project and we can only have articles on content that has received enough coverage in independent, reliable sources per WP:RS. Unreleased projects rarely get this sort of coverage and indie projects in general struggle to gain coverage even after they've released. I'm also concerned at the small edit war going on between Emilyraeburn and Lucindaconcell, the former of whom wants to remove names for legal reasons while the other wants them added. If the usernames are to be believed, it looks like at least one of the actors does not want their full name attached to the project and given that the cast pages on Facebook give off the impression that they're all minors, this gives it an extra oomph for deletion. I could just speedy this as a hoax of sorts and I doubt that few would contest this, but I figure that AfD would give the page a little protection against re-creation in the future without a lot of sourcing to justify an article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is unreferenced, and I can't find any evidence that the series otherwise passes the general notability guideline. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 22:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:WEBCRIT, WP:CREATIVE, WP:ENT. And just *what* does that Smithsonian Folkways link/ref have to do with this "Can Do Crew"? And why was the article created with the "multiple issues" maintenance template... etc. At the very least, looks like an incipient case of WP:TOOSOON. Shearonink (talk) 06:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It makes me wonder if it was ever deleted under a different name. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Wizadora, it mentions "Wiz Productions" (added by an anon earlier this year). I was unable to find any other mentions of the names or "production company" in any visible WP pages. Shearonink (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I have seen on YouTube alot of video's from 'Can Do Crew' and uploads from 'Wizo Productions' it seems they have their own youtube page, both can do crew and wizo productions. Both pages show videos of the project stating 'Official Opening Titles' and their is a website for them as well. I have also noticed their is a website for one of the actors 'Sean Evans' that states he is working on the project. Also the fact they are working with Comic 'Andy Ford' and other stars of TV makes me wonder how this came about if it were not true. It stats on their facebook page that this Is true and 'exclusive' it also stats that the series was shot at 'JJ Locations' and after looking online this appears to be established. And to hire their studio, I'm guessing would have been very expensive for just a small project. Plus it stats this web series is exclusively for YouTube and DVD. This has not happened as yet, but may well happen, possible on a budget. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.42.247 (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing is that until it happens and gains coverage, all that we have is a website and a video that makes various claims. Anyone can claim anything on the internet and we've had plenty of claims on here of projects that had such and such a person involved, that they were filming at such and such location, only for things to never occur, either because it was a hoax or because things fell through. Now even if the project existed right here and now and there were a dozen episodes, that still wouldn't make the project automatically notable. (WP:ITEXISTS) The bottom line here is that at best this seems to be something that a group of kids are making in their spare time. I do wish them well, but Wikipedia isn't the place to promote their work and in general they seem to need to get their stuff straight since the edit history shows that part of the project's people don't want their full names associated with it. Well, that and the whole possible bootleg video thing on their website. That's really an unwise way to raise money if you want to go into the business, at least doing it that publicly. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also something I want to stress to these kids. In order to distribute something on DVD it has to either be in the public domain or you have to purchase the distribution rights from the rights holders. You cannot just put things on DVD and sell them, as that's considered to be bootlegging and can lead to fines and or jail time, depending on how much you've done and whether the rights holders want to pursue the matter. I need to stress again that it's not a good idea to make a website like that and advertise that you're making DVDs unless you have purchased the rights, which can run thousands of dollars. Given that the people I the group appear to be kids in their teens and preteens, I have to guess that it's a case of you making copies without purchasing the rights. Please be careful. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's still nothing actually convincing of solid independent notability for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Center of Waste Management Indonesia

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

This commercial operation in Indonesia fails WP:GNG. The references show that it organises seminars and releases press releases but little else. Almost certainly a very commendable company but searches found nothing substantive to support notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the links provided don't really show notability. There are a couple of mentions including from metrotv but it is quite a short piece and only really shows existence rather than notability. Also to note the relevant page on the Bahasa Indonesia wiki is up for speedy deletion and the proponents of the page on the en wikipedia have removed the AfD tag on the page. MLA (talk) 09:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no delete the link, just add some reliable information. Its valid information. Still confused whats going on some people want to delete this page? Serpongpers (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{This information of Center of Waste Management Indonesia is valid. Valella, are you Indonesian or can understand Indonesia language, so you give that false opinion related to this organization? because mostly all reference on Bahasa Indonesia. Please also note that Center of Waste Management is not a company, but an non-profit organization on waste management research and activity in Indonesia. This small mistake from Valella shown that his/her comment is not reliable. Thanks |O}}

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this page's Indonesian version got deleted per WP:A7 (and later again per WP:G4, but that deletion seems to have been done inappropriately, considering that the deletion discussion is still on-going). - HyperGaruda (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes agree, the deletion have been done inappropriately due to deletion discussion is still on going. JamesG5, do you have any problem with the author? check the history of other article that you accused the author and act not careful many times. No need to offense and prejudice :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.5.23.145 (talk) 19:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was the first one across this article, and the related article Bayu Indrawan‎. Was planning to AFD this myself when I woke up, the Bayu article barely meets criteria and the SWMI one doesn't appear to at all. Searching shows pretty much nothing internal in Indonesian sources. Moreover there are serious wp:coi issues with the account that created both pages and I see at least 2 ducks here as well as an unregistered IP that was in last night on top of the original single purpose account making it clear this is all wp:promo for a non-notable organization. JamesG5 (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and MLA, this does not meet GNG in the slightest. Moreover, the article is indeed very promotional in tone. GAB^gab 14:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is good things, they care about environment. How about you? :) Pedulilingkungan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Two contributions to AfDs on this user's first editing day and both of those AfDs being articles created by an editor currently banned for sockpuppets. MLA (talk) 07:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I've started a sockpuppet investigation. - HyperGaruda (talk) 09:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. I also tried to verify its physical existence. Their website gives some contact details in the footer, but it lacks an actual street name. It does say that the center is located in Giriloka 1&2, which is a pair of gated communities at coordinates 6°16′52″S 106°40′01″E / 6.281°S 106.667°E / -6.281; 106.667. Considering that notable offices are unlikely to be located in residential areas, I believe that CWMI is just a small club of environmentalists with their HQ at someones residence in that gated community. - HyperGaruda (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:G12, unambiguous copyright infringement of http://elementsmagazine.org/archives/e5_3/e5_3_dep_peopleinthenews.pdf. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Boatner

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

Close paraphrasing to http://elementsmagazine.org/archives/e5_3/e5_3_dep_peopleinthenews.pdf Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy-deletion (G11) (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wovex

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

The article appears to be written by the founder of the company mentioned WP:COI, it doesn't provide any independent, reliable sources showing it meets Wikipedia's general notability guidelines WP:N, and appears primarily promotional. It appears the page has been created and deleted before based on the initial comment. Phil (talk) 05:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of attained notability for this firm/package, whether under WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. The related article on the Realisor product, though not created by the same WP:COI account, may also be worth considering. AllyD (talk) 07:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Also nom'd for speedy deletion. It should also be noted that the article talk page has comments contesting the deletion, much of whom look like meat puppets. --Drm310 (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Premda

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

PROD removed via drive-by and my searches have still frankly found nothing better at all, there's nothing here to any applicable notability therefore nothing convincing overall. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent sources verify notability of this person. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Could not find significant coverage in reliable sources. ~Kvng (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:16, 1 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J. Keith Stewart

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

My searches have found nothing better at all and there's nothing convincing for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This author is non-notable. I do not find any secondary sources where he is discussed. Plus self-published? Heifs simply not notable at this time. Maybeparaphrased (talk) 05:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also failed to find any sources. And the article makes no claims to notability beyong self-published novels. Which amount to nothing in terms of notability unless a reliable secondary source notices them.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was similarly unsuccessful at finding sources which would evidence this author's notability under WP:BASIC or WP:AUTHOR.. If we had an article on Alpha Phi Alpha's The Sphinx, I could imagine he could be included in a list of editors there and redirected, but we don't. --joe decker ^talk 18:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mormon pornography

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

PROD removed, my searches have found nothing better at all and there's simply nothing actually convincing this can be its own independently notable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article and the single cited (non-notable) source appears to be character assassination aimed at the Mormon Church, since no reliable sources indicate this subject is notable or even true. I recommend deleting as quickly as possible - I am guessing the Mormon Church will not be happy about this article being on Wikipedia, because it is inflammatory and appears to serve an agenda of some sort. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The cited source is obviously an opinion piece and nothing more. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I blanked the page and tagged for Speedy Deletion G!0 - attack page. Feel free to read my comments in the page history and talk page history. ---Steve Quinn (talk)

I don't believe the article falls under WP:ATTACK and have reverted you as such. The article describes a niche genre that exists. It may not be notable but the article treats the topic neutrally even if the church considers it blasphemous. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about "blasphemous" or anything like that. It is an article created by being based on unsubstantiated and inflammatory claims with no reliable sources to back it up. Wikipedia is not here to defame or attack - and that is all this page does. Did you remove the content from the Talk page? There was information there pertaining to the PROD and this AFD that should remain on the page. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point exactly to what excerpts you consider as unsubstantiated,inflammatory, or even an attack? Remember that attack is a page that disparages the subject of the article. The subject of the article is mormon pornography. Not Mormons. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this is a genre that does exist and is supported by sources in addition to the fusion article. [8][9][10] Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I perceived the title and the contents of the article as an unsubstantiated attack on this particular religion - which would also fit the definition of an attack page. I perceived as such because I didn't see any other sources that supported this subject. If I had tried different search terms and so on, I might have come across some. If the consensus here is that these new sources are acceptable then so be it. I would prefer this shows up in more mainstream publications - but whatever consensus says in the AfD is what it will be. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point specifically the unsubstantiated attacks in the article as it is currently written? The vagueness of your arguments is not helping this discussion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It definitely exists, and there's coverage in reliable sources. There is nothing defamatory about this article. I am mystified by this claim. The porn itself may be weird (to some) and upsetting to Mormons, but Wikipedia is not censored. MisterRandomized (talk) 07:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic passes WP:GNG, having received significant coverage in reliable sources. Some source examples are listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Peter Johann Nepomuk Geiger, watercolor, 1840]]

I'll go ahead and add one more relevant source:

Pride & Prejudice Salt Lake City Weekly

Comment I believe the overall topic of religious porn should have a WP article, but not that we should have a stand-alone article for a specific religion like Mormonism, since it's not the only religion to have been featured in pornography (there's also Islam, Judaism, Christianity, etc.). It's better to create an article titled "Religious pornography" and have sections for specific religions within it. No reason to have a bunch of different articles like Mormon pornography, Muslim pornography, Jewish pornography, etc. when a single article can easily encompass all that information. Rename to Religious pornography, expand with info on other religious pornographic subgenres, and redirect Mormon pornography to the specific section on the topic within the new article. Rebecca1990 (talk) 13:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete An interesting list of sources from NorthAmerica, interesting because they skew left-wing creating an interesting 21st century echo of the 17th - 19th vogue among left-wing intellectuals (some was translated into English, but it was usually written in Paris, Vienna and other Catholic places as a means of attacking the Catholic Church - I'm lookin' at you Marquis de Sade). This can similarly be construed as a similar attack on the institution of the Mormon Church and on Mormons as an identity group. We are not, however, dealing with the extent or caliber of sourcing available to support Convent pornography. Because I only find a handful of sources, this runs afoul of WP:RECENTISM. Because sourcing is weak, no scholarship, no serious journalism, just color stories and Gizmodo, a group blog - I do not see that this passes WP:GNG. Because sources skew leftist or leftish and are publications with an anti- or irreligious audience and slant (Alternet, Salt Lake City Weekly, Vice (magazine), I think keeping it risks WP:UNDUE and WP:ATTACK.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC) E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Double-checking myself, I did find a scholarly article: [Foster, Craig L. "Victorian Pornographic Imagery in Anti-Mormon Literature." Journal of Mormon History 19, no. 1 (1993): 115-32. [11]. One serious article doth not WP:GNG make. I would revisit if someone can produce serious journalism or scholarship on this as a contemporary phenomenon.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another article if you equate erotica with pornography. Many people make a distinction and others disagree. Peterson, L. S. (1987). In defense of a Mormon erotica. Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 20, 122-27. The author analysed the two genres to promote a distinction to defend Mormon erotica writers. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User E.M. Gregory - thank you. Most of what you said, is what I wanted to say, but I didn't want to have a long (or short) debate with 4 or more other people - trying to show what is very clear to me. I am seeing the sourcing as not very high caliber. This article appears to be an attack (indirect or otherwise) on the Mormon religion and Mormons as an identity group. The writing in the sources is skewed anti-religious and some of it seems sarcastic.

For this type of article, I think high caliber sources are needed- such as scholarly works - or serious journalism - such as in the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, etc., and mainstream magazines. And, yes, based on the quality of the sources thus far, this subject appears to have been given undue weight WP:UNDUE.

Finally, I did not know, but should have guessed, that this type of behavior has shown up in the past - as it did in the 17th thru 19 centuries regarding some other religion, i.e., Catholicism. Additionally, the sources running afoul of WP:RECENTISM is ~~related~~ relevant to this discussion. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete., does not meet GNG for a stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 22:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several of the delete !votes are from people who seem to be upset that the subject of the article exists, and are taking these feelings out on the article about the subject. That would be akin to a pro-life activist trying to get the abortion article deleted. This topic is written about in reliable sources and is notable, so we should have an article about it regardless of whether some find it offensive. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 03:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant coverage in multiple reliable new sources added since nomination. ~Kvng (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's enough coverage in reliable sources to convince me that there's an article in here somewhere. The exact details can be hashed out on the talk page. I don't think this article from Queerty has been posted yet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's plenty of RS coverage, so I don't understand what the delete !voters think. Ignoring Rule 34 doesn't make it go away. Jclemens (talk) 07:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this AfD results in a Keep I think the two scholarly articles posted by User:E.M.Gregory and User:Morbidthoughts should be added as references in some way. User Morbidthoughts' article does not specifically discuss this topic, but its broad view approaches this subject from a different angle - and it is really well written. User E.M. Gregory's article also does not specifically discuss this topic, but it does approach this subject from a historical perspective - it is also well written.

Also, upon reviewing the sources, this subject appears to be satisfactorily covered in a number of posted independent sources that are staffed with editors and reporters who are engaged in real journalism. The times they are a-changin'. In other words, --->

I remember a time when any online based publication was suspect. I have just discovered that now we have many alternate reputable news sources. I am happy to say, in the area of communication and news reporting, it is a different world. I have never done this before, but I want to thank everyone for their contribution to this AfD - it's been a learning experience--- Steve Quinn (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---By the way, both scholarly articles contributed by Moribunds and E M Gregory are worth reading:

Foster, Craig L. "Pornographic Imagery in Anti-Mormon Literature." Journal of Mormon History 19, no. 1 (1993): 115-32. [12]
Peterson, L. S. (1987). In defense of a Mormon erotica. Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 20, 122-27. (I changed the link to one that works). ---Steve Quinn (talk)

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dix Dev

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

PROD removed as part of a driveby PROD removal and I still confirm my PROD here, searches found nothing and there's nothing for applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as absolutely not notable. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Could not find any reliable coverage. ~Kvng (talk) 14:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A google search turned up zero sources pertaining to the topic. --Dps04 (talk) 17:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nauman Chaudhry

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

No indication of notability. Written like a Resume and initial edit summary indicates it was originally speedy deleted for advertising. Only references are directory entries rather than significant coverage. Google searches not finding significant coverage. noq (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 06:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG - sources are directories only, including the US News entry. Wikipedia is not a CV. Scr★pIron^IV 18:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all for any applicable notability and improvements, simply not convincing. Notifying DGG for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 04:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete ~~Uncertain~~ We could delete as promotional , but he is actually somewhat notable as an expert under WP:PROF based on citations: 338, 102, 69, 61, 58 .... all in first rate specialty journals, most where's he's clearly the main author. I am not going to rewrite, but if someone does the article is fixable. The first step in evaluating an academic is to look in Google Scholar, and anyone can do it. DGG ( talk ) 03:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 11:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not convinced that the notability here goes beyond writing a good many papers that were published in academic journals, and WP:PROF tells us that this criterion alone is not sufficient for meeting its notability guidelines. Two comments about the Google Scholar results. First, there are several academics whose names are "Nauman Chaudhry", some of whom also share the same middle initial as the subject here. Of the five papers cited by User:DGG, only three are by the subject. Second, the most widely-cited paper on the list (the one with 338 citations) is not one for which the subject was a primary author. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about that one. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 2 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 redirect to Officially unrecognized Harvard College social clubs. Nakon 04:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bee Club

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

Newish and unlinked article is WP:ADMASK from WP:SPA of Harvardclubs. One of 10+ such clubs at Harvard. Redirect to this main article in the alternative. UW Dawgs (talk) 17:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as only known at best through the university and could be mentioned there as needed if needed and available, nothing currently convincing for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Officially unrecognized Harvard College social clubs, where this topic is already covered.. Minor coverage exists, such as this and this, but not finding significant coverage to qualify a standalone article per WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:17, 2 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. WP:NOQUORUM, closing in favour of delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vintage Slide Collections from Seattle, Vol 1

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

NN indie release, does not meet NALBUM. MSJapan (talk) 23:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps at best instead of redirecting as there's nothing outstandingly better, still questionable for own article. SwisterTwister talk 22:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:NOQUORUM, closing in favour of delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lost and Found (Volume III)

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

NN indie album, does not meet NALBUM. MSJapan (talk) 23:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all convincing of its own notable article. SwisterTwister talk 22:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:48, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gellish database

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

The concept of a "Gellish database", i.e. a database holding Gellish data, doesn't seem to have any notability. This long article seems to consist mostly of an essay about triplestores, and their superiority to relational databases. Yaron K. (talk) 01:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm not finding anything better. SwisterTwister talk 22:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searching my university's journal database yielded four hits, all spurious. Google Scholar yielded exactly two papers, both by the author van Renssen who is cited in the article. I can't support the notion that this is notable. MisterRandomized (talk) 07:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G5 —SpacemanSpiff 14:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark A Schneider

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

Biography that does not contain any in-depth sources about the subject. I was also unable to locate any while doing a search. There is some local press and other publications talking about cases, but nothing in-depth about the subject that would satisfy WP:GNG. CNMall41 (talk) 04:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I myself reviewed this, nothing at all at best for a convincingly notable article. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, nn by any test. By the way this was created by a sock of the indeffed user Boskit190 and may be eligible for speedy deletion under G5. Brianhe (talk) 13:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Simon Chesterman. Clear consensus for this article to be redirected rather than deleted outright. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 00:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Raising Arcadia

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

This is WP:TOOSOON to have its own article. Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:BKCRIT. The only reliable source talking about this newly published book is this article in The Straits Times which was written by Simon Chesterman himself. A small mention is already there in the author's article, and that should suffice for the moment. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Simon Chesterman. I agree that it's too soon. There doesn't seem to be independent coverage in English-language Singaporean sources, which is where you'd expect to find coverage of an English-language novel. If anyone's curious, you can find a list at List of newspapers in Singapore. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Simon_Chesterman#Bibliography or to the fiction section in his article - either one is fine, as long as it's with history intact. There's actually very little out there about the book in general and while the author's website says that it can be purchased directly from the publisher, the various sale websites give it a release date of October 2016. From what I gather, the May 2016 publication date was only for Singapore. It's possible that there's coverage in other languages, but until that's shown I have to assume that this is just too soon for an entry. I have no problem with this being restored from a redirect once more coverage becomes available. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seetha I. Wickremasinghe

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

non notable; assistant editor of a journal. no major publications DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Dan arndt (talk) 11:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete looking at the edit history and how the article looks like a resume reeks of self promotion. LibStar (talk) 09:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I planned to comment earlier but wanted to wait until perhaps people familiar with this would comment first, the article, after examinations, shows nothing at all actually convincing of solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:12, 2 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 keep. Clear consensus to keep. Note that I'm not closing it as a speedy keep because it doesn't meet the criteria, please see WP:SK#NOT. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 00:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sana Javed

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

The person fails a notability test. Just because the person has been an international athlete does not make her notable. There are no references provided other than player profile.

(Update) I recommended the article for deletion because there is no notable information included in this page. I did not think that merely creating a page with a single sentence merited notability. I am aware that international sportspersons are considered notable, but surely there should be enough information about the person to merit a Wikipedia page besides a single sentence. Thank you! Manoflogan (talk) 04:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:CRIN as an international cricketer. This is verified by both sources in the article, whether they are player profiles or not are irrelevant. Jevansen (talk) 04:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - nominator appears to be unaware of WP:CRIN and WP:NCRIC. St Anselm (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Playing in Women's One Day International cricket is enough to pass WP:NCRIC. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Navjaat Bhaskar

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

No evidence of notability. I declined an A7 request because the article has a credible claim of significance. SSTflyer 03:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 03:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 03:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only found the company's own website; besides that, there is really nothing out there. While there may be material in Hindi, I'm not seeing any credible sources. GAB^gab 17:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely fails GNG. A quick search found nothing out there but some blogs and social media pages, nothing here to show notability. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 10:47, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to the valid concerns about notability, the article itself tells us little more than that the company exists. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Demon (Dungeons & Dragons). Clear consensus for the content to be merged, with the Rutterkin page turned into a disambiguation page. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 00:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rutterkin

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

This article does not establish notability. It only has primary sources. TTN (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Create disambiguation page. Rutterkin as defined here is included at Demon (Dungeons & Dragons), but it is also a plausible search term for Witches of Belvoir. A lack of evidence of real-world significance precludes a separate article for the D&D demon, in my view. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Demon (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 23:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Demon (Dungeons & Dragons) and then change this page to a disambiguation page per J Milburn. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Demon (Dungeons & Dragons), create a DAB page for the term. Rutterkins appear in many D&D publications and there is enough material there to verify basic facts like publication history and a basic description. They already are covered pretty well at Demon (Dungeons & Dragons), so there may not be much extra to merge. A DAB is warranted as this is a plausible search term for D&D and Witches of Belvoir. There was also a Rutterkin beer. --Mark viking (talk) 04:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Demon (Dungeons & Dragons). It doesn't look like we have enough independent coverage for a spinoff article. Rutterkin show up in Google Books searches, but it seems to be witchcraft-related, not this D&D version. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Demon (Dungeons & Dragons), for the reasons already stated above. Aoba47 (talk) 16:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Something of a WP:SNOW finish to this one. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of major cities in the United States lacking an NFL franchise

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

Fails WP:LISTN. Grouping not discussed in independent reliable sources, and the selection criteria of "metro populations greater than 800,000" is completely arbitrary. —Bagumba (talk) 03:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem like a worthy list. Would be better if this information was included in National Football League under a section titled Future Expansion that included cities that have a source. Some of the information could be included in List of defunct National Football League franchises. Agree with nominator, completely arbitrary and no sources for most of the cities as ever having been in the discussion for an NFL team. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per ~~WP:NLIST~~ WP:SALAT: an arbitrary list criterion. Would support creation of a section of National Football League addressing future expansion possibilities that have been discussed in reliable secondary sources, i.e. Las Vegas, San Antonio, Texas. MisterRandomized (talk) 04:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list seems utterly pointless and unnecessary.--Rockchalk717 06:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Majority of entries have "never hosted an NFL franchise", and I suspect there's little if any coverage on the absence of an NFL franchise for such entries. Likely fails WP:SIGCOV. Potentially POV given the recent Rams' recent move back to Los Angeles (St. Louis fans), and the possibility of a Raiders move (Oakland fans). Following up on Gonzo, whatever content does not belong in the defunct NFL teams list can probably find its way into the team or team-history articles for the Rams & Raiders. Levdr1lp / talk 10:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure trivia, because most major American cities don't have NFL franchises. Not even New York has one (the "New York" teams are both in New Jersey), and the article is clueless about US metropolitan areas, of which there are 388. Those are WP:SOFIXIT problems, but this list has the fundamental problem that we don't maintain lists of things without X when the list of things with X is much smaller. Nyttend (talk) 11:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:INDISCRIMINATE when considered in conjunction with the sources. There is a group of cities that would pass WP:LISTN as "cities regularly discussed as potential locations for NFL teams". This is not that group. It's not even close to that group. ~ Rob^Talk 12:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SALAT....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for several reasons, including WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:SALAT. Rlendog 15:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SALAT and WP:OR; the items included in this list are not discussed in reliable sources. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficiently notable and cohesive as a stand-alone list. Cbl62 (talk)
Delete a list of "stuff where something is not" has no value. It's simply the opposite of "a list of something" -- thin this case, a list of NFL teams. Any city not on one list is on the other. Duh. We already have National Football League franchise moves and mergers and other relevant and worthwhile lists and articles. I see no value in this.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Ellis (Rapper)

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

Unlikely to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. —swpb^T 12:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I feel as there are a lot of people looking for this artist right now and he is growing faster each day. This info has sources that confirm everything in the article and I see no reason for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktthatme (talk • contribs) 13:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get a update on this? - Ktthatme — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktthatme (talk • contribs) 02:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: So of the 11 "sources" provided, five of them are links to his music on Spotify or iTunes, which aren't really references, three are to his own social media sites on Facebook, Twitter and Nova Design Group, Ellis's media company, and another reference is to a blog. What we need is independent reliable sources. K.T. That Me, would you by any possible chance be related to Kyle Treadwell, Ellis's friend, manager and co-founder of Nova Design Group, and therefore having a COI in this deletion discussion? I genuinely wish Mr Ellis all success with his career, but being generous this is a serious case of WP:TOOSOON and an editor with a vested interest in promoting the artist in question. Richard3120 (talk) 03:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article lacks adequate sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NEXIST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing actually suggesting the solidity of independent notability, there is information and sources but nothing actually beyond convincing. SwisterTwister talk 07:09, 2 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yogananth Andiappan

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

This article in its current form appears to not to pass WP:BASIC. Analyzing the references

this is about membership of a golf club
this is an indication that Mr Andiappan is a member of the International Association of Yoga Therapists. Please do note that just the fact that it does not have a Wikipedia article does not mean it is not a reputable professional organization.
This BBC News reference indicates that Mr Andiappan has a yoga practice in Hong Kong.
this is a page on the andiappanyoga.com website. While it may assist in locating Mr Andiappan within a family of yogis, it is not a reliable third-party source about the subject of the article.
this indicates that Mr Andiappan has had an article published in Asana Journal.

Any number of non-notable people have written books, have written articles in scholarly journals, are yogis, and so on. Did I get this wrong? As always, please do prove me wrong about this. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable for reasons given by nom. JMHamo (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a notable yogi. I was on the fence before because it made it seem he was bringing yoga to Hong Kong, but that is not the case. There are many yogi's who are also not of note, who have published in small publications. Allaboutjane8181 (talk) 02:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's nothing at all convincing for solid independent notability, current information and sources are not at all convincing. SwisterTwister talk 07:09, 2 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Lianne Chandler

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

Subject is only notable for one alleged event WP:BLP1E, relationships both real and alleged do not confer notability WP:INVALIDBIO, everything noted on subject is again from one alleged event WP:SINGLEEVENT, page has been padded out with material that has no citations or is based from subjects interviews taken from facebook posts in order to create a pseudo biography which is common for bios that are only notable for a single event WP:PSEUDO. I apologize for my newbie status however I have done a lot of reading in order to try to be respectful and helpful as I possibly can Allaboutjane8181 (talk) 02:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind that I've reformatted your original writeup, since it reads easier this way. No complaints about being a newbie; we all were once. Nyttend (talk) 02:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Nyttend. I can see that you helped me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allaboutjane8181 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add that OG page was started by a member who has been permanently banned ^[1] subject lacks notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allaboutjane8181 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peionizone

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nomination has it spot on. I can find nothing notable about the subject of the article other than she was born an intersex person who became a short term girlfriend of Michael Phelps and subsequently has tried to capitalize on it. All the applicable Wikipedia pages are cited, including single event and relationships not conferring notability. Facebook posts are not good references; even if they were, they would not overcome the lack of notability here. Donner60 (talk) 08:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as within all of this information, there's nothing at all here for actual convincing notability for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:06, 2 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Renegade Party

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources that aren't blogs and twitter do not mention the subject. Can't find any other sources. At best, this appears to be WP:TOOSOON. Kolbasz (talk) 08:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kolbasz (talk) 09:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Kolbasz (talk) 09:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources included in the article do not establish notability as they are not third-party sources. Additionally, the only few included third-party sources due not mention the subject. — Music1201 ^talk 21:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More references have been added since the last poster and nominator posted here. Currently at least three references in the article do directly mention the article subject. See here, "Renegade Party: A New Home For Conservative Rebels"[13], and here, "A Third Political Party is Born: 'The Renegade Party'", here, [14], and here, "Bill Kristol Announces The Renegade Party to Oppose Trump and Clinton" [15]. The article subject passes WP:GNG because it has received significant coverage from numerous sources, as well, it has crossed the threshold of WP:N Notability and should be retained at wikipedia. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 00:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Irrelevancy.--Dribblingod (talk) 02:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for sheer dearth of sources (I looked). We can revisit if this becomes a thing, but even then creator might do better to start it as a section of Never Trump.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the argument of Fouette above. There are the cited references listed above in the pathos, politistik, and the libertarian republic, that contain significant coverage to have the article pass GNG. Plus there are at this point nine references listed in the article. Those saying there are no mentions are not correct. Maybe their google is not working. Maybeparaphrased (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are nine references used in this article. Of these, one is Bill Kristol's Twitter and one is their official account on Twitter. These are primary sources and therefore not valid sources proving the notoriety of the Renegade Party. This makes seven sources usable for this discussion. Three of sources are not actually articles about the Renegade Party. While they may be valid sources for use in the article's content, they are not about the Renegade Party and do not prove its notability. All four articles that are actually about the Renegade Party are on sites which are not notable enough for Wikipedia articles, such as blogs, and are not reliable for determining if this is a notable political party, especially given they all seem to have partisan tendencies which I would associate to this Twitter account, just by glancing at their sites and looking at some of their headlines. In essence, this leaves zero valid sources proving the notability of the Renegade Party. Nuke (talk) 03:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the fact this article is about a Twitter account, not a political party. I'm ordinarily not a fan of deleting articles and planned to abstain, but until they've applied to become a registered political party in at least one state, this should be regarded as, quite simply, a Twitter account. Nuke (talk) 03:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting. Searched. There really is nothing beyond the rather off-the-cuff (trial balloon?) announcement. Not even worth rolling into Never Trump. I continue to suggest that we delete, with no prejudice against re-creation if it ever actually becomes, you know, a political party. Or even a think that outlasts the brief micro-flurry this generated.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Renagade Party has launched and there is a very strong movement behind it. On Sunday, May 29th, 2016, Bill Kristol announced: "There will be an independent candidate--an impressive one, with a strong team and a real chance."^[1]

Where, on Twitter? Asking because I can't find a news media source on this "launch".E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing at all actually convincing of solid independent notability, only newly started and contains only expected coverage because of controversy. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 2 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Russi (TV serial)

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

Contested PROD - the rationale still applies: no independent sources and no sign of notability. bonadea contributions talk 06:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Per nom, it seems to have no reliable references at all. Wgolf (talk) 02:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's nothing at all suggesting, despite its newness, it can be established as independently notable for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 2 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sayyar Jamil

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

No evidence person meets Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Only reference is not independent of the subject. LukeSurl^{t c} 14:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing apparent for any applicable notability, WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Inviting DGG for professors notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Judging by the not very helpful Google translation of the Arabic WP article,he appears to be significant as a writer and scholar. Unfortunately I do not have the language ability to read the sources, nor to look for additional ones, or even prepare a proper bibliography. this is an example of [[WP:Cultural bias}}, where we have difficulty determining notability by our standards for people in other cultures. The proper way to counter it is to be as inclusive as seems practical. DGG ( talk ) 06:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Arabic article cites a few more sources, all in Arabic. One is his own site [16], but the other seem quite reliable and somewhat independent. I don't have the language skills to figure out if the other sources are worth anything, but I suspect they might indeed be, so I am !voting keep as I think there is a reasonable chance he passes GNG— crh ₂₃ (Talk) 10:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If "professor" is used in the European sense, he is almost certainly notable. Unfortunately I also do not read Arabic, so that I cannot judge. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without proper sourcing (that we can read) we cannot definitively state the subject passes GNG or PROF and I see no reason to presume he does. I encourage Ar-wiki to develop this article and translate material across. Meanwhile, I'm not tripping over myself with foolishness about "cultural bias". I decide based on facts. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:58, 1 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 keep. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 00:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jihmi Kennedy

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

Perhaps his only notable role was as Jupiter Sharts in the 1989 Civil War film Glory (1989 film). Regardless, the sole source from New York Times is a dead link, thus the article is unsourced. The article may qualify for WP:NACTOR but it fails WP:GNG. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times article is not a dead link; even if it were the print edition would be a source. Kablammo (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - he appears to have another notable role in 2007, but even if he never acted again, which he almost didn't, he was widely lauded for his supporting role in Glory. There's not much of a stub there, but it has potential. I found several good sources with a few clicks. Bearian (talk) 20:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to film at best as I would be lenient to keeping for that, as we have for other people best known for one film and such, but this is all still questionable for own notability, as shown by his list of works. SwisterTwister talk 22:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep had a major role in a very notable film, Glory, and some other productions such as The Lives of Angels passes WP:NACTOR Atlantic306 (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources found confirm that he meets WP:NACTOR. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This article has been on AfD for three weeks and has been relisted twice and only one editor has contributed with a desire to keep the article, in contrast to the deletion nomination. There is no consensus on this article and relisting for a third time would not benefit the discussion in my opinion. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 00:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk Baberowski

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

No coverage outside primary sources Prisencolin (talk) 23:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's been quite a while since this issue was meaningfully addressed at AfD. With overwhelming agreement across seven deletion discussions (see discussions on Brian Selden, Tommi Hovi, Darwin Kastle, Kai Budde, Mike Long, and Jon Finkel, twice), it's fairly clear that there is a consensus that the top Magic: The Gathering players are notable. On that basis, WP:MTG established some guidelines as to when an MTG player is notable, which Baberowski meets. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The WP:MTG guidelines allow for pages that don't otherwise meet GNG requirements. Many of these pro players articles just lack reliable, secondary sources, plain and simple and so shouldn't exist on WP as standalone articles. Note that per WP:LOCALCONCENSUS "... unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. " Also note that an WP:ALTERNATIVE, exists, a fan wiki that covers the MTG pro scene, so its not like this information would be lost if not for wikipedia.----Prisencolin (talk) 03:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Same case as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcio Carvalho (Magic: The Gathering player). Sandstein 19:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Hayne

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

no coverage outside primary sources Prisencolin (talk) 23:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's been quite a while since this issue was meaningfully addressed at AfD. With overwhelming agreement across seven deletion discussions (see discussions on Brian Selden, Tommi Hovi, Darwin Kastle, Kai Budde, Mike Long, and Jon Finkel, twice), it's fairly clear that there is a consensus that the top Magic: The Gathering players are notable. On that basis, WP:MTG established some guidelines as to when an MTG player is notable, which Hayne meets. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The WP:MTG guidelines allow for pages that don't otherwise meet GNG requirements. Many of these pro players articles just lack reliable, secondary sources, plain and simple and so shouldn't exist on WP as standalone articles. Note that per WP:LOCALCONCENSUS "... unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. " Also note that an WP:ALTERNATIVE, a fan wiki that covers the MTG pro scene, exists. So its not like this information would be lost if not for wikipedia.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best, this is still questionable for anything notably better, there's nothing to suggest this article can be amply better shown of notability and improvements. SwisterTwister talk 22:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; no evidence for any substantial coverage. Two of the three sources give only a few stats, and the other one barely mentions him; substantial coverage is not a paragraph that mentions your name five times. Nyttend (talk) 02:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Same case as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcio Carvalho (Magic: The Gathering player). Sandstein 19:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tsuyoshi Fujita

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

No coverage outside primary sources Prisencolin (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's been quite a while since this issue was meaningfully addressed at AfD. With overwhelming agreement across seven deletion discussions (see discussions on Brian Selden, Tommi Hovi, Darwin Kastle, Kai Budde, Mike Long, and Jon Finkel, twice), it's fairly clear that there is a consensus that the top Magic: The Gathering players are notable. On that basis, WP:MTG established some guidelines as to when an MTG player is notable, which Fujita meets. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The WP:MTG guidelines allow for pages that don't otherwise meet GNG requirements. Many of these pro players articles just lack reliable, secondary sources, plain and simple and so shouldn't exist on WP as standalone articles. Note that per WP:LOCALCONCENSUS "... unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. " Also note that an WP:ALTERNATIVE, a fan wiki that covers the MTG pro scene, exists. So its not like this information would be lost if not for wikipedia.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as although this is better sourced and informative than the other articles listed, it's still questionably better notable at best. There's nothing to suggest comfortably convincing to keep. SwisterTwister talk 22:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There doesn't seem to be significant coverage in reliable sources. A WikiProject can't just override the GNG with its own local consensus. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Same case as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcio Carvalho (Magic: The Gathering player). Sandstein 19:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Floch

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

no coverage outside primary sources Prisencolin (talk) 23:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's been quite a while since this issue was meaningfully addressed at AfD. With overwhelming agreement across seven deletion discussions (see discussions on Brian Selden, Tommi Hovi, Darwin Kastle, Kai Budde, Mike Long, and Jon Finkel, twice), it's fairly clear that there is a consensus that the top Magic: The Gathering players are notable. On that basis, WP:MTG established some guidelines as to when an MTG player is notable, which Floch meets. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The WP:MTG guidelines allow for pages that don't otherwise meet GNG requirements. Many of these pro players articles just lack reliable, secondary sources, plain and simple and so shouldn't exist on WP as standalone articles. Note that per WP:LOCALCONCENSUS "... unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. " Also note that an WP:ALTERNATIVE, a fan wiki that covers the MTG pro scene, exists. So its not like this information would be lost if not for wikipedia.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best as all of this still seems questionable for solid independent notability, there's nothing convincing to suggest this can be kept and better improved, should that have happened. SwisterTwister talk 22:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's this article from The Oregonian, but it's rather brief. I don't see any other coverage in independent reliable sources. The other Google News hits are just YouTube videos. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Same case as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcio Carvalho (Magic: The Gathering player). Sandstein 19:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Willy Edel

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

little coverage outside primary sources Prisencolin (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's been quite a while since this issue was meaningfully addressed at AfD. With overwhelming agreement across seven deletion discussions (see discussions on Brian Selden, Tommi Hovi, Darwin Kastle, Kai Budde, Mike Long, and Jon Finkel, twice), it's fairly clear that there is a consensus that the top Magic: The Gathering players are notable. On that basis, WP:MTG established some guidelines as to when an MTG player is notable, which Edel meets. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The WP:MTG guidelines allow for pages that don't otherwise meet GNG requirements. Many of these pro players articles just lack reliable, secondary sources, plain and simple and so shouldn't exist on WP as standalone articles. Note that per WP:LOCALCONCENSUS "... unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. " Also note that an WP:ALTERNATIVE, a fan wiki that covers the MTG pro scene, exists. So its not like this information would be lost if not for wikipedia.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as everything here is still questionable for notably better, nothing noticeably convincing of solid independent notability for own article. SwisterTwister talk 22:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article subject is Brazilian, so may find more sources on Brazilian websites / Portuguese language websites, such as [17] --Sesameball^Talk 07:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see coverage in independent reliable sources. Google doesn't seem to have cataloged much of anything in terms of Portuguese-language coverage in reliable sources, but it's possible I missed something. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Same case as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcio Carvalho (Magic: The Gathering player). Sandstein 19:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Comer

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

no coverage outside primary sources Prisencolin (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's been quite a while since this issue was meaningfully addressed at AfD. With overwhelming agreement across seven deletion discussions (see discussions on Brian Selden, Tommi Hovi, Darwin Kastle, Kai Budde, Mike Long, and Jon Finkel, twice), it's fairly clear that there is a consensus that the top Magic: The Gathering players are notable. On that basis, WP:MTG established some guidelines as to when an MTG player is notable, which Comer meets. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The WP:MTG guidelines allow for pages that don't otherwise meet GNG requirements. Many of these pro players articles just lack reliable, secondary sources, plain and simple and so shouldn't exist on WP as standalone articles. Note that per WP:LOCALCONCENSUS "... unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. " Also note that an WP:ALTERNATIVE, a fan wiki that covers the MTG pro scene, exists. So its not like this information would be lost if not for wikipedia.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps at best instead as although he's part of the Hall of Fame apparently, the matter of solid independent notability is still currently questionable and I see nothing else convincing here. SwisterTwister talk 22:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem to have significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Like the others, this player seems to be a person who never made it into reliable sources despite his status as a champion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: While the player in question is somewhat notable, for the most part, there are no reliable, secondary sources at the moment that back up his notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyanhat (talk • contribs) 06:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Same case as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcio Carvalho (Magic: The Gathering player). Sandstein 19:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jérémy Dezani

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

Little coverage outside primary sources Prisencolin (talk) 23:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's been quite a while since this issue was meaningfully addressed at AfD. With overwhelming agreement across seven deletion discussions (see discussions on Brian Selden, Tommi Hovi, Darwin Kastle, Kai Budde, Mike Long, and Jon Finkel, twice), it's fairly clear that there is a consensus that the top Magic: The Gathering players are notable. On that basis, WP:MTG established some guidelines as to when an MTG player is notable, which Dezani meets. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The WP:MTG guidelines allow for pages that don't otherwise meet GNG requirements. Many of these pro players articles just lack reliable, secondary sources, plain and simple and so shouldn't exist on WP as standalone articles. Note that per WP:LOCALCONCENSUS "... unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. " Also note that an WP:ALTERNATIVE, a fan wiki that covers the MTG pro scene, exists. So its not like this information would be lost if not for wikipedia.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: I agree with the nominator. There is virtually no coverage of the player outside of primary sources and that needs to be emphasized a lot. While the player can be slated to be notable per WP:MTG guidelines, the article needs to reflect the player based off of more reliable and relevant sources too. CycoPenguin (talk) 01:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There were a few trivial mentions scattered throughout French-language sources, such as [18] in fr:Jeuxvideo.com. However, I don't see significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, which is what we need to satisfy the GNG. We can't just go by some WikiProject's local consensus on notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Limited discussion, but the one "keep" must be discounted because it merely asserts inherent notability without basis in a community-adopted guideline or policy, and does not address the sourcing problems. Sandstein 19:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marcio Carvalho (Magic: The Gathering player)

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

no coverage outside primary sources and blogs Prisencolin (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's been quite a while since this issue was meaningfully addressed at AfD. With overwhelming agreement across seven deletion discussions (see discussions on Brian Selden, Tommi Hovi, Darwin Kastle, Kai Budde, Mike Long, and Jon Finkel, twice), it's fairly clear that there is a consensus that the top Magic: The Gathering players are notable. On that basis, WP:MTG established some guidelines as to when an MTG player is notable, which Carvalho meets. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The WP:MTG guidelines allow for pages that don't otherwise meet GNG requirements. Many of these pro players articles just lack reliable, secondary sources, plain and simple and so shouldn't exist on WP as standalone articles. Note that per WP:LOCALCONCENSUS "... unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. " Also note that an WP:ALTERNATIVE, a fan wiki that covers the MTG pro scene, exists. So its not like this information would be lost if not for wikipedia.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I got about 100 hits for "Marcio Carvalho" mtg, and none of the results looked like anything but fansites, primary sources, or blogs. There doesn't seem to be enough coverage here to justify an article, and a WikiProject's local consensus can't override the GNG. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
+1 for delete. There are many MtG players more notable that Carvalho and they do not have wikipedia pages (nor should they). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:fa00:9:1:a8c4:98cb:e181:c505 (talk • contribs)

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. Same case as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcio Carvalho (Magic: The Gathering player). Sandstein 19:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kamiel Cornelissen

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

No coverage outside primary sources Prisencolin (talk) 23:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's been quite a while since this issue was meaningfully addressed at AfD. With overwhelming agreement across seven deletion discussions (see discussions on Brian Selden, Tommi Hovi, Darwin Kastle, Kai Budde, Mike Long, and Jon Finkel, twice), it's fairly clear that there is a consensus that the top Magic: The Gathering players are notable. On that basis, WP:MTG established some guidelines as to when an MTG player is notable, which Cornelissen meets. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The WP:MTG guidelines allow for pages that don't otherwise meet GNG requirements. Many of these pro players articles just lack reliable, secondary sources, plain and simple and so shouldn't exist on WP as standalone articles. Note that per WP:LOCALCONCENSUS "... unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. " Also note that an WP:ALTERNATIVE, a fan wiki that covers the MTG pro scene, exists. So its not like this information would be lost if not for wikipedia.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see only around 100 Google hits for "Kamiel Cornelissen" in total. A few of them look like they might be reliable sources (it's tough to tell even with Google Translate), but they're just trivial mentions, anyway. There doesn't seem to be significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, and, once again, I'll say that a WikiProject's local consensus can't override Wikipedia's notability guidelines. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: You may want to retry that search, because I'm getting about twenty thousand. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The initial number that Google reports is meaningless. Once you click through the results a few times by skipping to page 10 or so, you frequently find that there's less than 100 results total. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:41, 2 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 keep. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 00:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Axel: The Biggest Little Hero

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

Non-notable film, no reliable independent coverage, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 01:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Cursory search indicates no independent coverage or viewerbase. I agree with deletion as the nominator is right in stating that notability has not been established. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CycoPenguin (talk • contribs) 01:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC) — CycoPenguin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

TO CycoPenguin I am sorry to have to state this, but your "cursory search" has been easily and thoroughly refuted. You offered an early opinion about THIS, but in looking further, I found quite a bit more, and thus improved the article accordingly to better serve Wikipedia and its readers. I invite you to take a look at the improved article and perhaps modify your stance. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Well I think that this article has some chance to get notice, the article just needs more time, besides, it's obvious that we're getting ahead of ourselves to delete this amazing article this soon, cause to be frank, it's too soon, ya know?! :/ NJOrozco 06:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Reply: Then it would be covered under WP:TOOSOON, wouldn't it be? Sources have yet to be found that demonstrate that the film in question is noteworthy. Cyanhat (talk) 07:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Exactly! ;) NJOrozco 07:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Keep ever though a film for toddlers, and more than the multiple reviews found under its current title, under its original title Bonta 3D it is also sourcable. Needs more work not deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
- Reply: Yeah, I agree, which is I suggest that we should marge the 2 articles instead of deleting this one, that way we have the info, and the sourse that we need for this article, ya know! ;) NJOrozco 16:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Merge it with...what? --Jpcase (talk) 02:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ok, so I don't that there's an article od this, Bonta 3D, meaning merging the one that's about to be deleted, and the one that doesn't exist, it really isn't going to happen, so all we have to do is to fine some sources and hope for the best! :/ NJOrozco 02:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Keep Passes WP:MOVIE at the very least, having independent and complete reviews. Kind of mundane at the moment, but I don't think deletion is necessary. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 05:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Definitely not necessary indeed! ;) NJOrozco 06:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Keep: Article clearly meets WP:GNG, per refs recently added by MichaelQSchmidt. If someone wants to move it to Bonta 3D, then I wouldn't oppose that, but there's certainly enough coverage to justify having an article on this film. --Jpcase (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Exactly! ;) NJOrozco 18:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Note to Norozco1 & Jpcase: The fact that it had a different earlier Anglified title Bonta 3D with its Chinese release is mentioned in the current article. But that name gives MANY false positives in searches. It is far more easily searchable and sourcable under current title of Axel: The Biggest Little Hero, and a move to the earlier title would be a deficit to readers, not a benefit. HOWEVER, a redirect link the redlink Bonta 3D to current sourced title can be easily created. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to MichaelQSchmidt: OK, I see you're point that you're trying to make here, but our point still stands, ya know! :/ NJOrozco 05:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Update @Bovineboy2008: found some great production background.[19][20] Not just a direct-to-video, the film had wide theatrical release in China in August of 2013. Just took digging. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to MichaelQSchmidt: That's great to hear good buddy, hope that we'll fine more sourses ike this one! ;) NJOrozco 05:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, it was the early tweaks by Tokyogirl79 that got me interested in going further. . Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's good to know! :) NJOrozco 14:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One Love Party

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

The party simply isn't notable; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ankit Love (2nd nomination). Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The party is not notable. Largely unrelated references that contribute nothing to demonstrating the notability of the party. Cyanhat (talk) 07:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Context: See related article Ankit Love and its deletion proposal. Cyanhat (talk) 07:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found a lot of sources giving this as an informal name for the National Alliance for Reconstruction, taken from its campaign slogan. Uncle G (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom. Turn into a redirect to National Alliance for Reconstruction. Bondegezou (talk) 07:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Most of the blog posts and passing mentions are connected to the London mayoral election in which Ankit Love ran dead last for the "One Love Party." As others have noted, the term "One Love Party" is an alternate name for the Trinidad and Tobago National Alliance for Reconstruction party, an organization unconnected to Mr. Love's organization. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 14:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NORG. Jbh ^Talk 16:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now I don't see who we are helping by deleting the article. It's a matter of record that the party stood in a fairly important election (and did badly) with a particular manifesto and candidate - why not summarise this in an article? It got some coverage in independent reliable sources (get west london, huck magazine, hackney gazette, official sites etc.) and due to the nature of the election being for a mayor this was always likely to be mostly about the candidate rather than detail about the party. The party hasn't had much chance to stand in any other elections since, maybe delete it in a year or two if the party doesn't do anything else in that time as then presumably we'd have notability only for a single event that could be summarised in the article about that event. I have no objection to this article being trimmed back for now, and the article about Ankit Love was obviously filled full of PR fluff that needed removal. N.B. The article was getting pretty decent pageviews around the time of the mayoral election, plenty higher than the Green Party for example, so the article seems to have been providing some kind of useful service. JMiall ₰ 20:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: JMiall (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
- Reply to User:JMiall's keep opinion. Wikipedia write articles about notable subjects and delete articles about non-notable subjects. To argue a non-notable article should be kept because it may do better in future is a fundamental misunderstanding of the notability guidelines. You mention the number of page views as greater than the Green Party during the mayoral election but that demonstrates exactly why we have a responsibility to delete the article. One Love is contesting the Tooting by-election but has an article like other notable parties where other non-notable parties do not. This places undue weight on One Love at the expense of other parties to the election which is likely why the page views fell the way they did during the mayoral campaign. If One Love is notable "in a year or two" then of course it can easily be remade but not until that time. N4 (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The party is now contesting the Tooting parliamentary by-election on June 16, 2016.--Int Researcher (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC) — Int Researcher (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment: Please note that User:Int Researcher is a Single Purpose Account that has only made edits directly pertaining to Ankit Love and his party One Love Party, of which he claims to be leader. There is an ongoing sockpuppetry investigation on this user. This user does not follow policies regarding WP:NPOV and clearly has a Conflict of Interest, appearing to be, or directly affiliated, with Ankit Love, of which he keeps trying to downplay. Cyanhat (talk) 02:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: On the political party's official registration with the British electoral commission Ankit Love is listed as the leader of the One Love Party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Int Researcher (talk • contribs) 02:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a full disclosure, I am the editor who nominated Ankit Love for deletion. The arguments for Love's deletion nomination cannot be carried over as an argument for deleting the One Love Party article - it must be assessed for it's own merit independently of the other deletion discussion. That said I would like to draw your attention to the sockpuppetry comments made on that discussion as it is of relevance to this one. As for this AfD, I would come down on the side of...
- Delete Many of the sources - such as "What If a War Between Pakistan and India Went Nuclear?" and "Norman Foster unveils plans for elevated 'SkyCycle' bike routes in London" - do not deal with the One Love Party at all and are included as promotional material for the subject. The few sources that directly deal with the subject comprise normal coverage of an election campaign. The party has not received significant coverage required to fulfill the GNG and the party is non-notable according to WP:NORG too. N4 (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable flash-in-the-pan. Softlavender (talk) 05:45, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ankit Love is the leader, treasurer, nominator and sole candidate of this party. It is clearly a vehicle to promote Ankit Love, not a serious party. If we exclude the unreliable sources (Twitter, oneloveparty.eu and ankitlove.com) and the sources which merely give election results, we are left with only a few sources, none of which offer in depth coverage of the party.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 11:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is to delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Toby Van Woudenberg

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

My PROD has been removed, so I will nominate this for deletion. I have looked [and] cannot find any reliable sources discussing this young man beyond a passing mention in the Newcastle Herald article here that is not substantially about him. Seems to fail WP:GNG. MisterRandomized (talk) 01:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I myself had reviewed this and planned to nominate, nothing at all actually convincing for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 01:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of meeting WP:GNG. Can't find any secondary sources other than the Herald Article. He is not mentioned in any other major newspapers nor is there any coverage of the subject in question. CycoPenguin (talk) 01:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete only passing mentions. I find it hard to believe that an 18 year old would have an established career. LibStar (talk) 12:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus that the subject goes not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fletcher Mulnix

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

no apparent evidence of notability. Nothing I could find pertinent visible in GNews or elsewhere except a wedding announcement DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all convincing for including basic notability, apparently autobiography. I certainly know I would've enjoyed finding this myself. Notifying PRODer Meatsgains. SwisterTwister talk 01:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources cited that are reliable or even relevant to the article at hand. Search indicates no notability. Does not meet WP:GNG therefore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CycoPenguin (talk • contribs) 01:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject lacks notability as an announcer and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 16:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IBM OLIVER (CICS interactive test/debug)

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

Lack of relevant references. Searched for sources, could not find anything substantial which was not dependent on Wikipedia. Contested PROD. SJK (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Where did you search for sources? This is a 1970s piece of technology so a lack of any online references does not indicate a lack of notability. ~Kvng (talk) 22:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Lack of current sources is not cause for deletion when sources are expected to exist. The only issue here is that those sources are certainly going to be print-only, due to the subject at hand. This seems inherently notable to me, as a part of computing history. Sources needed, but I'm sure they exist. Alas, I'm not in a place where I can go hunt them out... I wonder if archive.org's library has some computing magazines from the day that might mention it? Fieari (talk) 01:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I looked extensively for online sources (Google, Google News, Google Books, Google Scholar, IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library), and–putting aside Google Books snippet view, which I'll get to in a moment–I couldn't find any substantial coverage in reliable sources. I don't personally have access to any offline sources that might be relevant. But I should point out, the argument "don't delete this because offline sources to demonstrate notability could/might/probably exist" is really just a variant of WP:MUSTBESOURCES. To survive an AFD, it shouldn't be enough to merely argue that offline sources might exist, or even to argue that (in your opinion) they probably do – someone has to identify specific offline sources which demonstrate notability, and no one has been able to do that. Note this is distinct from WP:PAPERONLY/WP:OSO–those are bad arguments when specific offline sources have been identified, but they don't apply when no one can individually identify relevant offline sources. (Finally, deletion isn't permanent – if someone identifies sufficient offline sources at some future date, the article can always be undeleted or recreated.)

I did find a couple of Google Books snippet view resources, which I'll describe in a moment. The problem with snippet view, is you see so little of the text, it is very hard to judge whether the reference complies with WP:RS and WP:GNG or not. This is different from Google Books preview, where you can often see the entire page containing the search term hit, frequently adjacent pages, and often many other pages of the book as well, which makes it much easier to judge the reference's reliability and its individual contribution to notability.

According to Google Books, Software World volume 6 (1976) page 20 mentions a "CICS DEVELOPMENT AID: Gemini UK have released a new product designed to help IBM CICS users. GEMINI OLIVER (On-Line Interactive Video Environment Resource) is an on-line testing aid and debugging package for all IBM System 360/370 DOS and OS users of CICS and CICSA/S. GEMINI OLIVER, is designed to allow application ..." ("CICSA/S" is probably an OCR error for "CICS/VS"). Probably this is the same package as described in this article, but it's hard to be 100% sure given the article never mentions a company called Gemini. However, I'd point out this is just a "snippet view" journal, so unless someone actually has a printed copy of this journal issue (or a scanned-in copy), I don't see how we can judge this reference against the WP:RS and WP:GNG criteria. (Software World doesn't appear to be a particularly notable journal.)

Another reference found on Google Books is International Directory of Software, CUYB Publications, 1980, p. 268. But once again, it's only snippet view, and unless someone has a scanned-in or hardcopy of this publication, we don't have enough information to judge whether this source meets WP:RS and WP:GNG.

If anyone here has access to these hardcopy publications, I think we should all be willing to accept their description of them in general, and of how they cover this particular product – but, we still need to evaluate that description against the relevant policies. But if no one in the discussion has seen those sources, we can't conclude that they are sufficient for this article to pass WP:GNG – we can't just assume, that because unseen sources A and B discuss this product, their discussion of it is substantial enough to meet GNG

I don't deny WP:ITEXISTS – this was a real commerical software product sold in the 1970s, and likely more recently than that as well. But, unless we start arguing that any and all commercial software products sold in the 1970s or earlier are automatically notable – we don't have enough evidence at present to judge it as meeting WP:GNG. (Now, if someone was to propose – any commercial software product prior to date X is automatically notable – I would actually be inclined to support such a proposal, but that isn't Wikipedia's notability standards as they currently stand, and the purpose of WP:AFD is to implement the policies as they currently exist, not to introduce new ones.) SJK (talk) 07:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't think mention in either Software World, or the International Directory of Software, is a good indication of notability, because they are both (I understand) non-selective publications – they aimed to include all commercially available software. As such, they are like the software equivalent of the telephone directory. SJK (talk) 08:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. SJK (talk) 07:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SJK (talk) 07:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An additional comment–despite its title containing "IBM", I can find no evidence this was ever an IBM product – indeed, the article text seems to suggest it is the work of other companies. I suspect the article title is erroneous. The article title originally didn't have "IBM" in the name. There is an IP comment at Talk:IBM OLIVER (CICS interactive test/debug) saying the article title is wrong. SJK (talk) 07:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Move to Draft instead as my searches have found nothing and this is best deleted until it can be noticeably improved, nothing convincing for its own article at this time. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or No consensus until we can find editors with access to offline sources to determine whether this is notable. Delete !votes based on empty internet search results should not be given weight here. ~Kvng (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment which specific offline sources are you referring to? If you don't have specific offline sources in mind, this argument just seems to be a slight variant of WP:MUSTBESOURCES/WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Since no one in this world can have a comprehensive selection of offline sources, by that standard everything from that time period must be notable, since you'd never be able to prove there aren't, somewhere out there, offline sources which demonstrate notability which no one has seen yet. It's essentially demanding to prove a negative (no one can ever prove that no offline sources exist, since no matter how many offline sources you check, there will always be more that you haven't) SJK (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I follow your reasoning but I find the potential implications unacceptable. Anything that is unsourceable on the internet would be subject to persuasive Delete arguments from editors who come up with empty searches. I agree that I haven't made a strong Keep argument but I think my No consensus argument is reasonable (though admittedly unconventional). ~Kvng (talk) 23:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If no one can present any sources for an article, then what is the harm in deleting it? If someone later identifies sufficient sources, the article can always be recreated. The article can be moved out of mainspace (into draftspace or userspace) – and then if someone one day finds sufficient offline sources to meet WP:GNG the article can be moved back to mainspace. SJK (talk) 10:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard arguments from others that anything unsourced should be removed from mainspace. I find the potential implications of that also unacceptable. There is no way sources are going to get added or any other improvements made if we delete or otherwise hide work in progress. See Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. ~Kvng (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 333 -blue 13:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I looked as well, with much the same paucity of results as above. It's clear who the creator of the article is, from this and an already deleted autobiography. Unfortunately, xe has taken the wrong approach to documenting xyr achievements. Please get it independently documented outwith Wikipedia beforehand, M. Dakin. We insist that Wikipedia articles be verifiable from external reliable third-party published materials. This is not. Uncle G (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What seems to be a complete and utter lack of attention to this program even in terms of 1970s and 1980s era publications accessed through Google Books, plus that it's not mentioned in any retrospective materials looking back at the development of the Customer Information Control System framework, makes me think that the notability of this is weak at best. The talk about the article being in 'the process of being built' or that new material 'is just about to be found' or whatever is disingenuous. I'm typing this days and days after the article was first nominated for deletion, and still it looks like while there's so much in the page being claimed about the program, there's still no sourcing. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/737025756488978432

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peionizone

[2] ttps://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/737025756488978432

[1]

[1]