Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 28

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 27 May 29 May >

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 Keep. Consensus is that the sources available are sufficient to write an appropriate list article on this topic, particularly via the strong arguments given by DGG and Newyorkbrad. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of major cities in U.S. lacking Amtrak service

List of major cities in U.S. lacking Amtrak service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sources do not appear to discuss these as a group, failing WP:LISTN. I would not oppose a significant re-working of the article into something akin to List of cities with discontinued Amtrak service, which may be useful, but listing cities who have never had service or even reportedly wanted service is excessive in the absence of strong sourcing discussing these as a group. ~ RobTalk 22:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • But here are some sources that do:
86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And a few more examples of evidence that the topic of this list is relevant to, and raised in connection with, the continuing political discussions surrounding Amtrak:
  • A book, Rails Across Dixie: A History of Passenger Trains in the American South, that uses (and cites) this Wikipedia list for the purpose of supporting the author's (debatable) assertion that Southern cities are disproportionately unserved. [1]
  • An advocacy document from the Maricopa Association of Governments that includes a list similar to this one in making an argument for the resumption of train service to Phoenix. [2]
  • U.S. Rep. Dina Titus invokes a list of biggest cities without Amtrak in connection with her 2015 proposal for increased federal funding for intercity rail service. [3]
I don't think Wikipedia's overarching policies—indeed, its basic reason for existing as a freely available encyclopedia—are served by removing a well-organized, sourceable set of data that's relevant to a matter of public discourse. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comment above. As a further thought, Amtrak's incorporators had to choose which trains to keep in 1970-1971, knowing that major metropolitan areas would lose service. These decisions were as much political as practical, and led to much discussion and debate in Congress. Several routes (the Lake Shore is one example) were specifically revived to address the loss of service to major cities (in that case Toledo and Cleveland). This is discussed in reliable sources, such as Craig Sanders' Amtrak in the Heartland. Sources exist and LISTN can be met (per Arxiloxos's comments), given proper cleanup and the establishment of reasonable inclusion criteria. Mackensen (talk) 17:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having looked at this article in more detail, I reaffirm my "keep" above. This is an important list as discussions of the future of rail travel in the US frequently focus on whether and to what extent service is or should be provided to major metropolitan area. Unlike other lists that are sometimes proposed for deletion on the grounds that they are assembled via arbitrary criteria, the inclusion criteria here are, or readily can be made, entirely straightforward. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep list definable and notable topic of some discussion. I invite closing admin to ensure they check whether article fulfils notability criteria WRT sources. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is one instance where not is significance , and thee are sources discussing the problem which indicate what cities should be covered; a another approach, there could be a List of Cities which previously hd Amtrak train service -- there would be no doubt which ones to include, though the list would be longer and include some rather small cities. DGG ( talk ) 03:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe both lists should exist; the desirability of creating the "discontinued" list does not detract from the merit of keeping this one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • We can easily cover both in the same list. This is already done in this article with the notes saying if and when a former service has been discontinued. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • And I would add that many of these cities might not have had an Amtrak rail service, but did have services operated by Amtrak's predecessors. I think the important thing here is a lack of rail service, not the particular operator that might operate such a service. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • As noted in the nomination, I would support converting this into an article specifically on discontinued service. Alternatively, this could be partially merged to Amtrak as a new section discussing Amtrak's coverage limitations in prose. We could even do both. ~ RobTalk 05:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to me to be a viable subject for an article, given how shocking it is that cities of this size don't have a railway station. As a European I was amazed when I read it. Certainly one of those times when a list is clearly important. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:44, 8 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 SNOWing Keep as there's apparently no other ending here (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Godakumbura

Charles Godakumbura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable person Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He meets WP:ACADEMIC #6 as head of a major national scientific society, now known as the Royal Asiatic Society of Sri Lanka. His 1955 work Sinhalese Literature has been widely cited by scholars for 60 years. He was the top government official responsible for archaeology. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep whilst there might be a conflict of interest by the creator of this article, the subject is notable. Godakumbura was the first Ceylonese head of the Department of Archeology. He published numerous works on a range of subjects, which are still widely cited by academics. Satisfies WP:ACADEMIC.Dan arndt (talk) 08:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For those doing various searches, he is usually cited as "C. E. Godakumbura". I am leaning "keep" at the moment. He lived well before the internet era, and GBooks still gives 2,630 hits[4]; the name appears to be unique, so I don't think there are any false positives there. I did find one published obit about him[5] in the Journal of Burma Research Society. Also, there is a short book/booklet[6] published about him. So arguably passes WP:GNG, even if weakly. JSTOR has at least 14 published reviews of his work[7]. Actually, some of these reviews contain interesting semi-biographical details. E.g. this posthumous review[8] by Ernest Bender says, in particular: "The present catalogue -- based on first galley proofs which fortuitously survived the original manuscript destroyed by the ravages of white ants in Sri Lanka -- comprises one hundred ...". Probably one can make a case for passing WP:PROF here. Nsk92 (talk) 12:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: appears to meet qualifications for line of study/research and as per @Nsk92's thoughtful rationale. Quis separabit? 14:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to have been eminent Sri Lankan scholar. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Head of a major government department. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 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 speedy deleted G3 by JzG. (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 17:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sukuma Ancient Milk Technology

Sukuma Ancient Milk Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is not based on reliable sources (or at least, the reliable sources cited do not discuss the supposed topic of the article), and a search does not reveal any that could be used to base an article on this topic on. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. Is it too late to do a speedy delete now that this AFD was already started? I think it would qualify under A11. Obviously invented as a hoax, especially taking into consideration its twin article Sukuma Ancient Salt Technology (also at AFD) which is equally incoherent, except about baking soda instead of milk. Google doesn't come up with anything that seems remotely related to either article. —PermStrump(talk) 04:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC) *Updated —PermStrump(talk) 18:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have nominated Sukuma Calendar, created by the same editor, for speedy deletion, Permstrump, but under G3 as a hoax. I considered A11 for both articles, but it doesn't apply if there is any credible claim of significance. Perhaps there isn't such a claim here - the article is such a mish-mash that it's difficult to tell! Cordless Larry (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:47, 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. MelanieN (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pentagon (Bangladeshi band)

Pentagon (Bangladeshi band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources, not enough information about the band why it is notable and dose not fulfill WP:NMUSIC criteria. ~ Moheen (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ~ Moheen (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:37, 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. MelanieN (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mano Swartz Furs

Mano Swartz Furs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I sawn that article as promotional and non-noable. Fails WP:GNG. Delete as proposer. KGirlTrucker87 talk what I'm been doing 20:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, destroy and SALT -- blatant business advertising, Quis separabit? 14:05, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I reviewed this and, examining it closely now finally suggests nothing at all for any applicable notability, searches have found nothing better. The history suggests there are chances and this is why I would not have nominated sooner but there's currently nothing convincing of these improvements. SwisterTwister talk 04:16, 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. Clear consensus for deletion. North America1000 00:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sukuma Ancient Salt Technology

Sukuma Ancient Salt Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article makes unverifiable claims about ancient scientific discoveries. None of the sources actually provide information that is relevant to the claim that inhabitants of Sukumaland discovered a method for extracting Sodium Bicarbonate. Salimfadhley (talk) 20:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:49, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Co-operative Electrical

The Co-operative Electrical (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing notable I could find online, and typed up to the point of promotional use per WP:NOTADVERTISING. JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The most important content is already in The Co-operative Group as a summary. Cloudbound (talk) 21:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:34, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 05:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Janka Boga

Janka Boga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My searches have simply found nothing better at all and there's nothing better convincing from the current article so unless Hungarian sources can be found, I'm not seeing anything so far. SwisterTwister talk 20:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:55, 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. North America1000 00:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Montgomery Keillor

AfDs for this article:
Kenneth Montgomery Keillor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a writer, musician and unsuccessful political candidate, with no strong claim of notability under our inclusion criteria for any of those endeavours. The books were all self-published and there's no evidence of substantive coverage about his writing in reliable sources -- the only RS citations present here at all are to coverage of his non-winning campaigns for the mayoralty of his own hometown. While this was kept in a deletion discussion back in 2005, our notability and sourcing rules have been tightened up considerably in the past decade -- and nothing here claims or sources anything that would pass the rules as they stand today. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:57, 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. MelanieN (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lom Harsh

Lom Harsh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

He is a film director his first film Yeh Hai India is yet to be released all sources are about the same unreleased film.No notable work up to this film WP:TOOSOON Fitindia (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:59, 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. MBisanz talk 01:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Man Friday (2014 film)

Man Friday (2014 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not finding any proof that this film was ever released or any information about it having a name change then released. Steel1943 (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:05, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:05, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
in looking beyond....
name was changed:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
director:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
producer:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
star:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
studio:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
another name change:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:INDAFD: LohamG for Gold Ranjith Antony Perumbavoor Mohanlal
  • Delete per this stub being an earlier wrong title on a now existing topic.. The earlier film name of Man Friday was dropped[11][12] and the project became sourcable as G for Gold,[13][14] BUT with that change Manju Warrior and Prithviraj Sukumaran were dropped from the cast and THAT title shelved in January 2014.[15][16] The NEWS that my searches found was that it came off shelving and was finally created and released in 2015 under the name Loham (a decent article).[17] The fact that it went though name changes might be mentioned in the article about the released film. Schmidt, Michael Q. 12:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as still nothing convincing of notability for an article. SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Loham Delete per User:MichaelQSchmidt. Just add a line to the existing article about the name and cast changes. Meters (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was leaning toward redirect, until I looked at this source and found it says that Man Friday was only "rumored" to be the title and was never actually reported or confirmed. Since this was never confirmed as the original title of Loham, it should be deleted. However someone should take Schmidt's commendable research here and add it to the article Loham. --MelanieN (talk) 23:47, 5 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.

Payam Jarrah-Nejad

Payam Jarrah-Nejad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

a plastic surgeon with no evidence of notability. A great many plastic surgeons seem to get on TV shows to advertise their practice. DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Subject has been on an MTV show once, and while has been in the Cosmopolitan Mag, it was a paid for feature and not an actual piece. The Subject does not have any national awards or any awards of note. While I think this Dr does not meet notability guidelines, it has no barring on his skills as a surgeon. Allaboutjane8181 (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and I patrolled this myself but had not considered deletion since I am not as familiar with this field as DGG, but examining this shows there's nothing for an actually convincing notable article. SwisterTwister talk 18:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:18, 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 keep. This was a close one, but the Keep voters were more persuasive. MelanieN (talk) 00:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Veterinary Nursing Association

AfDs for this article:
New Zealand Veterinary Nursing Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

last AfD was no consensus but my own searches find a lack of in depth third party coverage to meet WP:ORG LibStar (talk) 08:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep National body for Vet Nurses in NZ, 1720 results on Google, and they publish their own journal which is published on SciQuest. I would say they qualify for NotableDeathlibrarian (talk)

http://www.sciquest.org.nz/elibrary/edition/7455

refer WP:GOOGLEHITS number of google results doesn't establish notability. LibStar (talk) 10:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 17:06, 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 no consensus. Neither the Keep nor the Delete !votes were particularly persuasive, and they are numerically balanced. The nomination has been relisted twice already; time for a close. MelanieN (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Global Concern

Institute of Global Concern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All I could find in a WP:BEFORE search on the Institute of Global Concern was one minor news mention, one minor book mention and a bunch of web links and Facebook posts saying an event was sponsored by the IGC. Quite simply, fails WP:ORGDEPTH on its own. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:05, 13 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) 06:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 17:02, 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 keep, noting that the original nominator is now also supporting the keeping of the article. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bull Run Regional Park

Bull Run Regional Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think the relevant guideline is WP:GEOFEAT which it does not pass, rather than WP:GEOLAND. The place is legally recognized (by NOVA Parks), but it is not "populated" in the usual meaning of the term (campers do not count). Moreover, I do not think it is a "named natural feature" either - the boundaries of the park are the result of human decision, not geology, for instance.

The history of the place is way below what would be required for "artificial geographical features" under GEOFEAT.

I could not confirm that it "became known for concerts" in the 1970s (and the refs do not mention it). There are listings of the place at tickets.com and the like, but I saw no indication of past concerts. That could be the base of a claim to GNG though. TigraanClick here to contact me 15:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:14, 4 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! 10:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • MergePark does not pass WP:GEOFEAT as it's not protected on the national level, but rather the regional level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steene01 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In contrast to the opinions above, I think WP:GEOLAND applies because the article's subject comprises both a named natural feature (the patch of land) and an artificial feature (the recreational facilities built upon it). As such, the union set of notability applies to this article. We clearly have descriptions of both natural features and park facilities available in secondary sources like AllTrails and Reserve America (both already cited) and many others from search results, so I think the relevant inclusion threshold has been met. Deryck C. 10:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "natural feature" clause in GEOLAND mentions "mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc." - I see that as mention any large natural formation that was given a name by the local population ("Mount Foo", "River Bar"). A park's boundaries are defined by humans. While there is more than basic info such as GPS coordinates etc. I would argue these are attached to the park (maintained by humans), not the patch of land, so the latter does not meet GEOLAND and we should fall back on GEOFEAT. TigraanClick here to contact me 08:11, 20 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) 05:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 17:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not going to bother trying to grok geoland vs geofeat. But a 2.5 sq mile public or private park that has annual events of public interest is going to be in the news and is going to be looked for by readers and we therefore have lots of park articles. Wp:gng trumps all other notability guidelines anyhow. --97.32.155.173 (talk) 07:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that WP:GNG is the golden guideline for notability, but where is the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? TigraanClick here to contact me 08:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:GEOFEAT is the guideline for "buildings and objects" - artificial manmade structures. Unless the park is made of concrete, it doesn't apply. In any case there's no need to overthink it - there's plenty enough coverage in multiple books on camping, hiking, and so on, found through google books search. It's significant and in-depth enough to write an encyclopedic article from. No doubt there is much more coverage in old newspapers or offline books, since the park opened in 1960. I don't think a merge to Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority would be good, since that article doesn't have information and history on individual parks. -- IamNotU (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator comment - User:Arxiloxos added some good sources via HotBeam. From User:IamNotU's indications, I also found this. So that is a keep for me (but I cannot withdraw with the merge !votes). TigraanClick here to contact me 10:32, 3 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. This is a WP:Soft delete. The article may be restored by any administrator upon request. MelanieN (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Thorne

Rich Thorne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

vanity COI/SPA page. lacks neutral tone. subject seemingly not notable - fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. Rayman60 (talk) 23:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as visual effects supremo for films including Fight Club, X Men, X Men2, Planet of the Apes, Shallow Hal, I Robot,Alien v Predator he passes WP:CREATIVE. The article has plenty of references already. I do agree with the nom that the article needs copyediting for neutral POV, but it can be improved. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete instead and Draft if needed, there are several works to his name, but this is still questionable for better article improvements at best. Considering he's only the behind the scenes worker, this is still imaginably questionable for solidity. SwisterTwister talk 21:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  17:51, 12 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) 05:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 17:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Visual effects "supremo" is still not solving the questionability of independent notability for his own article. SwisterTwister talk 05:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The article is already well referenced, so his notability has been backed up.The fact that he works behind the camera in a less visible role should not deny him proper consideration for the large body of his work, much of it on very notable, world-popular films. Atlantic306 (talk) 04:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Salman Mohammad Abdullah

AfDs for this article:
Salman Mohammad Abdullah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most of the references are not reliable. Most of them are WP:INTERVIEW. No significant work whatsoever. The reference of Ourtimebd does not contain anything about him. CNN ref is not verified by CNN, its an assignment work. Highly promotional article. No reason to keep this article on Wikipedia. Mar11 (talk) 09:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep – Notability established by the 24 References and Notes cited in the article. Most of the reference collected by the Bangladeshi Newspaper and some international newspaper. He has already won an important Bangladeshi award 3rd time in a row for his outstanding contribution in the arena of radio. He is also writer, Actor and News Anchor with the Notability work. — Masum Ibn Musa  Conversation 11:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Masum Ibn Musa (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Comment - The article contains 24 references indeed. But almost none of them are reliable. Most of them are regional news. Some are interviews, the ireport article is not international CNN news report, it's written by student of journalism as a practice assignment. References would not pass him WP:N. The article also contained commercial link of Rokomari, some of them were covered with false title. - Mar11 (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
sorry Mar11, but could you please clarify the above statement "Most of them are regional news."? WP:N, WP:GNG does not specify that regional news articles cannot be used for notability, indeed some editors have argued for the retention of articles based on sources from local/town and university/college papers, (consensus does, however, appear to point towards more references in these situations). Coolabahapple (talk) 08:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There was 1 or 2 regional news which have been removed along with the awards list. Coolabahapple If you can read Bengali, you will understand how lame and unreliable the websites (bijoybarta24,sangbadkonika,prothombarta,banglasongbad24,unitednews24,takkizbd,b24news) included in the article are!! Any Bengali reader will agree with me.
[18] 404
[19] Primary source, he works at Radio Today
[20] No news about him
[21] passing mention
[22] and [23] Mirror of each other. Probably press release. Highly promotional article. It says he has published a new book which will be available at Ekushay Book fair stall -169.
[24] promo article. advertisement of his book. Says the book will be available at stall 266 of Ekushay book fair.
[25] Interview
[26] 404
[27] No news about him
[28] No news about him
[29] passing mention. His name on the list of actors worked in this drama.
Only this two two sources [30] and [31] are from mainstream news sites (Jugantor and Ittefaq). But these are also written like advertisement piece, The authors just praising him in these articles; - Mar11 (talk) 09:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is so funny that Mr. Mar11 you could not found any reliable news about him and you have deleted some important point just like award or another part of the article. You should learn more and more about wikipedia rules. This is not good signed as a Wikipedian. No doubt about here in this article is more reliable with his notable work. What is the meaning No significant work whatsoever and Highly promotional article? — Masum Ibn Musa  Conversation 13:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Masum Ibn Musa has clearly put considerable effort into the article, and has a long track record of valuable contributions, so it pains me to disagree, but I'm not seeing convincing evidence of notability. I give the Ittefaq article more weight than the nom does, but the other pieces from independent, reliable media are very brief ([32], [33], [34], [35]) or primary source intereviews (NTV).
There are many references to the book releases, but they are mere publicity announcements, not even capsule reviews, let alone the in-depth reviews by professional book critics that in my experience are necessary to pass WP:AUTHOR. The awards are not notable ones. The first is mentioned in the Ittefaq article, but otherwise they are unreported by serious news organizations.
Direct searches of a dozen mainstream Bangladeshi news sources (both English and Bangla) found nothing more. WP:BASIC is not met. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  18:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This source says that it is not a verified news of CNN. Its like a blog or something like that. - 42.0.7.63 (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that David Benzam (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
@David Benzam: Would you clarify what you mean by, "At least one reliable source is better to established article"? If there is a source that you feel is in-depth, independent, reliable, and secondary, what source is it? If one such source exists, how does that square with the WP:GNG or WP:BASIC notability guidelines, which call for multiple sources? --Worldbruce (talk) 04:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  16:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all that has been said, including failure of WP:GNG, WP:RS, and WP:NPEOPLE, which reads as follows (boldface is my doing):
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
As Mar11 pointed out neatly above, what appears to be significant coverage (24 references) in reality isn't; we have some promotions, some first-party work, some passing mentions, and only two acceptable third-party sources, which isn't "significant".
If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.
Now, if we were to combine multiple, independent sources, that would be fine, and notability would be proven; however, there doesn't appear to be multiple, independent, third-party sources. All we have are sources that fail WP:RS.
Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.
...which, ultimately, leaves this article unsourced.

In conclusion, all of the evidence presented points towards failure of the general notability guideline; unless numerous third-party sources are presented to show otherwise (something which hasn't been done yet), deletion seems most appropriate. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 18:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Salman is a high profile Radio jocky, actor, writer and also news anchor. Bangladesh Cultural Reports Association (BCRA) Honors Awards for his outstanding contribution in the arena of radio (3 award career).1, 2. He has been working as a radio jocky since 2010 (7 years career).3, 4, 5. He has appeared on multiple notable hit television drama (6 drama since 2010),6, 7 as well as writer he wrote 3 books in 3 years.8, 9 He is a well-known figure in Bangladshi media and should therefore not be removed from Wikipedia. Though comprehensive comments here in delete but wikipedia rules does not support vote, should be logic here. David BenzamContact 09:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@David Benzam: You can't !vote more than once. --nafSadh did say 05:08, 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. MelanieN (talk) 00:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Onewheel

Onewheel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

On the list Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody/Articles. Doesn't seem to meet the criteria for notability. TJH2018talk 18:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  16:58, 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. Although she is found not to be notable enough for an article at this time, might there be some other article, perhaps about Nashville or about transgender rights, where she could be mentioned? MelanieN (talk) 00:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marisa Richmond

Marisa Richmond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is neither notable per WP:BLP1E nor WP:NPOL. I won't call a politician "low-profile" but we can't base notability on claiming transgenderism. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. st170etalk 14:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. st170etalk 14:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. st170etalk 14:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither serving on a municipal committee nor being a delegate to a political party's convention are claims of notability that get a person into Wikipedia in and of themselves — and "first member of a minority group to do this otherwise non-notable thing" isn't an instant notability pass either. She could potentially still earn inclusion if the WP:WEIGHT of sourcing and substance were sitting much more squarely on her role as president of the Tennessee Transgender Political Coalition, but that's also not an automatic inclusion freebie if you're leaning on just two references to carry it. None of this suggests or sources a compelling reason why she's earned an encyclopedia article yet. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have advertised this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Marisa Richmond. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I created the page and feel that Marisa Richmond does reach notability requirements as a trailblazer in the transgender rights movement and has made history more than once. I do not know her well personally but have kept up with her advocacy career. I am disturbed that it is considered for deletion when figures of less notability have been included on Wikipedia. She has been mentioned in the press several times and in books on transgender rights. I am trying to track down more books she has been mentioned in. She has won several notable national awards in the transgender community. I would hope Wikipedia would not attempt to censor transgender history. Consciouswanderer (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


The case for notability here is on multiple points but the broader career of being an advocate and being a pioneer in transgender rights including the recent accomplishment of being the first transgender individual to be appointed by a Mayor in Tennessee to a municipal commission/committee/board. Nashville is the state capital and second largest city in the US state of Tennessee as well. There are also several other major mentions in books and articles for Marisa Richmond. An overview of her career in 2008 prior to these recent accomplishmentsvis mentioned in the Wikipedia article is here: https://www.outandaboutnashville.com/story/ttpc-president-awarded-baltimore-black-pride#.V0C8GISGpt. Marisa Richmond has has also been invited to the White House several times for events and has personally been among transgender leaders to meet with President Obama more than once as well as senior Presidential Administration figures. She is on the White House list of transgender leaders to regularly communicate with. As one of the more notable public figures in national US transgender advocacy I feel she reaches the notability level for a Wikipedia article. She is also an academic in this field. US mainstream media has only covered a handful of transgender figures mostly in the Entertainment field on a national level such as Caitlyn Jenner, Laverna Cox etc. This does not mean that others do not exist in the advocacy and academic field or other fields. --Consciouswanderer (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Consciouswanderer: Please do not ascribe to censorship what is really due to beaucracy. Please be advised that name-dropping is a cognitive fault and you haven't made a case based on notablity criteria. Wikipedia includes information about many people regardless of race, gender, socioeconomic status, etc. That the subject does not meet our notability criteria is not an official condemnation of their work nor is it appropriate with your limited experience here to tell us what we should accept. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris troutman: I have had the most problems on Wikipedia so far attempting to make entries on people of color. There are those with less notability included on Wikipedia. Though I understand the standards around living persons are different this is a unique case given the field of transgender advocacy is a field that is reaching national prominence as these issues come to light in the United States as well as globally. The US national media has mostly covered only those transgender individuals in the field of Entertainment or celebrity. Other figures of transgender notability have not been covered as frequently by national media though still have accomplishments within their fields. Consciouswanderer (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@Consciouswanderer: It sounds then that your issue is with the media, not with Wikipedia. If journalists and academics write about transgendered persons we will then have the source material to support articles. You can understand then that we can't write articles without sufficient sources. I wrote the articles about Alonzo Davis and Xuemei Chen, both people of color and neither of which is a celebrity or entertainer. I also wrote an article about Sylvia M. Broadbent, a female scientist. None of these articles was ever nominated for deletion because I was careful in finding the source material before I published the article. I'm still working on sandboxes for female historians Shirleene Robinson and Karen Lindsey because I don't yet have the material I need. Let's also remember that "other stuff exists" isn't a fair argument as much content on Wikipedia ought to be deleted. You could certainly ask to have this entry userfied and continue developing what you have before moving the page back into the article namespace. Perhaps this subject just got published too early. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris troutman: She has received mention in several media sources though even if primarily LGBTQ media. The Associated Press has picked up on the story of her appointment by Mayor Megan Barry and it is now an AP Wire story as evidenced by being reported as far away as Miami http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/gay-south-florida/article78798177.html She has also been mentioned in a book by Oxford University Press. Consciouswanderer (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subject is also notable under the LGBT African Americans category. Consciouswanderer (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Consciouswanderer (talk) 20:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Report of subject's appointment to Metro Nashville board has now also been picked up by the Associated Press wire service and is being reported in newspapers in Miami among other places. [1]

References

  1. ^ "Nashville mayor appoints first transgender city board member". The Miami Herald. The Associated Press. 20 May 2016. Retrieved 21 May 2016.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  16:57, 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. North America1000 23:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Celestial Percussion

The Celestial Percussion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This book fails the general notability guidelines. There is absolutely no coverage. Google gives 11 hits for "the celestial percussion", of which only two are about this book, and those are both Amazon listings. Largoplazo (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:11, 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. MelanieN (talk) 00:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Yoshimoto Nemcoff

Mark Yoshimoto Nemcoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:AUTHOR. The page's main contributor is a WP:SPA [36]. A Google News search shows 4 results, two are from NY Post and SF Gate. Those two are mere mentions however [37] [38]. There is another story about his comic on Bleeding Cool [39] but the publication's notability is questionable as Bleeding Cool doesn't have its own Wikipedia page but is a subheading for another page. The other news mentions are press releases. CerealKillerYum (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:12, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 16:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arif Akhundov

Arif Akhundov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSPORT. The dude competed in the Olympics but didn't move into the next round. There is only 1 Google News reference for him, which is a table, not an article [40]. CerealKillerYum (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The top of WP:NTRACK, which is also the top of WP:NSPORT, says "Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." So, therefore, meeting WP:NTRACK #1 doesn't mean that Arif Akhundov should be kept. CerealKillerYum (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Native spelling is "Arif Axundov". His LinkedIn page contains potential claims of other notability against NTRACK, which are not supported by currently available online sources, but which would be (expected to be) supportable by physical sources. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 02:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC):[reply]
LinkedIn claims
  • 1997-2000 - Captain of Azerbaijan National Athletics Team
  • 1997- Athletics World Championships in Athens (Greece) – Captain of the Azerbaijan National Team
  • 1996 – 2000 8 times Winner/Medalist of the International Athletics Competitions in Iran
  • 1990 – 2000 30 times the Champion of Azerbaijan & 25 times the Champion of Baku city
  • 2000 - The Silver Medalist of the International Athletics Competitions in Bishkek (Kyrgyzstan)
  • 1996 – 2000 The Medalist of the International Athletics Competitions in Almaty (Kazakhstan)
  • 1990 – 1996 The Winner and the Medalist of International Athletics Competitions in Baku (Azerbaijan)
  • 1992 - The Silver Medalist of Caucasus Games in Tbilisi (Georgia)
  • 1992 - The Bronze Medalist of the VDFSO Athletics Competitions in Penza (Russia)
  • Well WP:BEFORE#B6 lists checking native-language sources, so the fact that sources might not in English isn't an issue. Not suggesting that these claims should be incorporated into the article without verifying, just that there are (in addition to his existing Olympics claim) multiple other claims of notability that could be sourced (probably from offline native-language and/or specialist sources). ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 07:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:13, 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. czar 18:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Destiny of Ancient Kingdoms

Destiny of Ancient Kingdoms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N and WP:V. It appears that there are no reliable, third-party published sources covering this game. All of the existing sources are primary, press releases, or sponsored in some way. I tried searching for sources using the WikiProject Video Games custom Google searches (both reliable and situational) and found "No Results". The current sources are:

  1. mygaming.co.za, a sponsored article "[p]resented by Utopia Dream Entertainment Alliance (UDEA)" (the developer)
  2. mybroadband.co.za, another sponsored article "[p]resented by Destiny of Ancient Kingdoms"
  3. nag.co.za, another sponsored article labelled as "Advertorial"
  4. metrotell.co.za, which just links to the mybroadband.co.za article
  5. lazygamer.net, a "sponsored" guest article
  6. dailyrevshare.com, which links to the lazygamer.net article

Just for completeness, I tried a general Google search and found nothing but the usual press releases, forums, social media, and unreliable sites. Woodroar (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I had tagged this for notability as I could not see anything that looked to me line notability. I am aware that on-line gamers tend to take a "different" view of the real world and its notability criteria, but even on a second review I believe that this fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   16:44, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:13, 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 Draftify. See Draft:Kasam Ishq ke. A clear consensus that this subject isn't notable at the moment, but a couple have requested it be preserved as a draft and no one has shown any harm would come from that. Jenks24 (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kasam Ishq ke

Kasam Ishq ke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
Anglified:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article about a film just released yesterday. I was unable to find any reliable sources when searching for the director, film title in English, and कसम इश्क़ के. Fails WP:GNG. - MrX 15:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
sharing my looking beyond the article:
Bhojpuri:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Translated:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
director:Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
producer:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
writer:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
music:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
music:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
studio:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
distributor:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:INDAFD: Kasam Ishq Ke कसम इश्क़ के A.K. Rai Subhash Nishad Manoj Pandey Jahid Akthar Narendra Sinha Creator's Lab
  • Comment: A Brand new article sent to AFD with hours of it being contributed, and as this topic appears improvable using Bhojpuri language sources, I suggest we encourage that it be done rather than toss because of English sourcing issues for a film not written in nor released in English. Perhaps far better and less bitey to simply draftify it for continued work away from article space. Schmidt, Michael Q. 13:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no time limit on sending article to AfD, nor is it bitey. The WP:BURDEN of sourcing belongs to editor who adds the material to the article. Not every film released a day ago is notable. Start up production companies frequently release films to YouTube, Vimeo, etc., and most are not notable.- MrX 14:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • A conjecture of what any film company may or may not do is not the issue, but yes, not all films are notable, and conversely many are that do not (yet) have articles. So? How would an inexperienced newcomer even know what WP:BURDEN is? Or MOS:FILM? Or WP:NF? Or WP:NRVE? or WP:NEXIST? Since I am not able to read this newcomer's mind, I do not know whether or not he/she feels BITTEN. A new contributor could either feel like his efforts are being diminished and he is then chased away... or he/she may feel that it is worth the time and effort to learn and improve contributions and editing skills. Which option best serves the project and its readers? A newcomer's not knowing how to use available (non-English) sources as citations does not mean sources do not exist, nor make contributions automatically non-notable. If something is arguably improvable, which option best serves Wikipedia... demanding it be deleted that same day due to the author's inexperience, or assuming good faith in the efforts and encouraging that it be improved out-of-mainspace? Schmidt, Michael Q. 16:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm happy to debate my views vs. your views about our deletion policy or about how we treat new editors, but this is not really the place to do it. My actions have been well within established guidelines, and widespread practice among new page patrollers. Contrary to what you assert, I did not demand "it be deleted that same day". This is a seven day (or more) process. The only thing that matters here is, is the subject notable as evidenced by substantial coverage in (independent) reliable sources? - MrX 17:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • No debate, specially if the article history has been tampered with and you were not the person who sent it to AFD the same day it was contributed. And since your statement makes it appear you understand the Bhojpuri language, please accept that I was unaware of your linguistic abilities, and in my own inability to read Bhojpuri I felt less inclined to declare these Bhojpuri sources as unsuitable. Schmidt, Michael Q. 17:28, 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 speedy delete. Author has blanked it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fast association of civil engineers

Fast association of civil engineers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason Asadraja93 (talk) 14:58, 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 keep. Notability has been established (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 16:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Medopad

Medopad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article about a non-notable startup. There's a carpet-bomb of references in the article, but looking at about half of them (all I could stomach), they all appear to be obligatory business coverage and/or rehashes of press releases. The first page of search results on Google returns, in order:

  1. Their own website
  2. This article
  3. Facebook
  4. Twitter
  5. CrunchBase
  6. Linkedin
  7. A reprint of a press release on an industry website
  8. Obligatory coverage of a funding round in a financial publication
  9. Metropad employment listings on a jobs board
  10. A Wordpress blog

This is not the sort of coverage notable companies get. Related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Vahdat. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
    1. Xanthos, Dimitris (August 2015). "Technology: Medopad". The Lancet Oncology. 16 (8). Elsevier: 893. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00150-3. Archived from the original on 2016-05-29. Retrieved 2016-05-29.

      The article notes:

      In a first of its kind, an app (developed by BMI Healthcare and Medopad, London, UK) was built on a specially designed Apple watch to be worn by patients receiving chemotherapy drugs and launched in April, 2015, at the King's College NHS Foundation Trust.

      Drug consumption, side-effects, and symptoms can all be recorded simply by tapping the watch touchscreen, in real time, 24 h a day. The information is transmitted to a hospital-based integrated mobile operating system platform sold by Medopad, potentially stored into electronic records, and carried to mobile devices of physicians.

      ...

      Some hospitals, including East Kent Hospital (Canterbury, UK) and Jinan University Hospital (Jinan, China) already use the Medopad platform, making it simple to test these watches.

    2. Baraniuk, Chris (2014-06-11). "Doctors with iPads could transform hospital care: Modern medicine creates mountains of data – a suite of iPad apps called Medopad aims to integrate it all and place it in the palm of a doctor's hand". New Scientist (2973). Reed Business Information. Archived from the original on 2016-05-29. Retrieved 2016-05-29.

      The article notes:

      With Medopad in place, doctors will be able to refer cases to one another for a second opinion from within the app suite. Photos of a patient’s visible symptoms can be taken using an iPad and shared, for example. Another Medopad app features integration with the Google Glass headset, which allows up to five clinicians to collaborate in real time, take pictures and share them, and access a patient’s records simultaneously. A pathology app can even do some analytical work for doctors, with abnormal blood-test results flagged automatically.

      ...

      Others worry that Medopad’s impact will not be of universal benefit. Carl Reynolds, CEO of Open Health Care UK, would prefer it if more software developers were commissioned to work with hospital data. That would mean that apps viewable on multiple devices could be created and that hospitals wouldn’t have to buy into a single platform. Medopad will cost about £50 to £90 per month per user for a hospital to license.

    3. Allessie, David (2015-05-28). "A HealthTech unicorn in the making: How is Medopad doing now?". KPMG. Archived from the original on 2016-05-29. Retrieved 2016-05-29.

      The article notes:

      One of the most outstanding healthcare startups on the HealthTech/IoT marketplace of the New Horizons 2014 event was Medopad. Medopad allows hospitals, pharmaceuticals and insurance companies to pool their patient data into a single platform so it becomes available to clinicians on apps and mobile devices in real-time. With their headquarters in London, the company was recently valued at 75+ million dollars. I spoke to Dan Vàhdat, CTO of Medopad, on their recent growth and developments.

      Since the New Horizons event last November things really took off for Medopad. With some major accomplishments in the last six months, there is enough to celebrate for Dan and CEO Dr. Rich Khatib. Though they operate in a market which is relatively hard for startups to get sufficient traction, Medopad managed to realize the following key milestones in the last months:

    4. Anderson, Elizabeth (2014-12-14). "App for doctors Medopad valued at £50m in latest funding deal: Metro Bank backer Lord Howard Flight has become the latest investor to back Medopad, which is making waves in the NHS". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2016-05-29. Retrieved 2016-05-29.

      The article notes:

      London-based Medopad was founded in 2011 by Dr Rich Khatib and Dan Vahdat, engineers who both had experience of developing clinical technology applications.

      Medopad works by collecting all data from hospital databases and collating them into a central source, which doctors can quickly scan from an iPad.

      ...

      The company is a supplier to both the NHS and private healthcare provider BMI Healthcare.

      It also has offices in the US, Germany and Dubai, as the firm looks to target new markets.

    5. Ellis, Marie (2016-02-12). "How can health hack into the Internet of Things?". Medical News Today. Archived from the original on 2016-05-29. Retrieved 2016-05-29.

      The article notes:

      Another company presenting at the Digital Health Innovation Lab was Medopad, which is a mobile health platform that aims to deliver clinical information directly to doctors, wirelessly.

      With Medopad, a doctor can access patient records, images and lab results on a tablet, rather than having to physically go to the lab or comb through a patient's physical file. What this means is that the doctor can spend more time with the patient, rather than filling out forms and ticking boxes.

      Essentially, it enables the physician to access all the data he or she needs immediately, saving time and reducing risks of making the wrong decision based on an incomplete view of the patient's data.

      The company also has a patient monitoring solution, which connects patient devices - such as the Apple Watch, a self-monitoring watch that collects data on the daily activity of the wearer - with their clinical teams.

    6. Charara, Sophie (2015-05-14). "Meet the cancer fighting Apple Watch app - the future of digital health is now: Medopad's Apple Watch app is aiming big". Wareable. Archived from the original on 2016-05-29. Retrieved 2016-05-29.

      The article notes:

      Medopad is a British healthcare company which has been building apps for doctors since the launch of the iPad. Now with the Apple Watch, it is looking to really improve patients' lives and empower them to get involved in their treatment with tech's latest toy.

      ...

      As for the future, Medopad is looking to roll out the trial to other hospitals. Khatib's goal is for all the hospitals in London to be on the scheme and there are plans to work with private hospitals in other countries such as China.

    7. Culpan, Daniel (2015-04-24). "WIRED Health 2015 Bupa Startup Stage: the pitch sessions". Wired. Archived from the original on 2016-05-29. Retrieved 2016-05-29.

      The article notes:

      Medopad

      "We’re facing an ageing population, chronic disease and the rising cost of healthcare," says Rich Khatib, CEO of mobile healthcare platform Medopad. "With that comes more data than ever before -- and this is where mobile health comes in to deliver better care and save money." Medopad enables care providers to access more than 50 million primary care records, check treatment plans and view lab results. It brings vital patient data to doctors and guarantees that all information is encrypted. Medopad was voted the Best Healthcare App 2014 by MEDICA. "It’s our vision and dream to be the holy grail of healthcare," Khatib says.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Medopad to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 04:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing here but corporate PR. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment: I looked at the current version of the article and do not see any promotional wording. The article is neutrally written and contains citations to the peer-reviewed journal The Lancet Oncology and the magazine the New Scientist that both discuss Medopad in detail. I have found several more reliable sources that I've listed above.

    This is not the sort of coverage notable companies get – based on the sources I've listed here, I cannot agree with this statement.

    existence of the article is promotional – how is the article's mere existence promotional? I've reviewed the article and don't find it promotional. But if there is anything promotional currently in the article, please explain so I can rectify the issue.

    Nothing here but corporate PR. – I think it's very difficult for "corporate PR" to get into the peer-reviewed journal The Lancet Oncology or the magazine the New Scientist. The New Scientist has negative material about Medopad so is not "corporate PR":

    Others worry that Medopad’s impact will not be of universal benefit. Carl Reynolds, CEO of Open Health Care UK, would prefer it if more software developers were commissioned to work with hospital data. That would mean that apps viewable on multiple devices could be created and that hospitals wouldn’t have to buy into a single platform. Medopad will cost about £50 to £90 per month per user for a hospital to license.

    Cunard (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there have been clear COI issues with this article in the past, but it has been cleaned up and could be expanded using the sources identified by Cunard, which clearly demonstrate notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I looked at both the article itself and also the listed sources here with none of it actually being convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 21:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 16:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bookitbee

Bookitbee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All sources are PR or SPS. No coverage in reliable sources sufficiant to pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG JbhTalk 14:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update Based on sources presented by Northamerica1000 this nomination should now be seen as neither keep nor delete. I do not think the material is sufficient to pass ORGDEPTH but there is an argument to be made for passing GNG. JbhTalk 13:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 14:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SwisterTwister: You are right. I was checking a bunch of reviews by a new NPPer I came across and screwed up myself. duh. JbhTalk 00:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 18:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jbhunley: The KentOnline articles are both bylined articles written by a staff writer who is employed by the source; they are not user-submitted content. Many news sources provide "submit a story" types of pages, but this does not negate the reliability of news articles authored by publication staff. For example, see CNN's feedback page, where people can submit story ideas and news tips. Would this then disqualify all CNN articles and television news reports? Certainly not. North America1000 04:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, my error, they had a PR'y whiff to them and I assumed from there. I am still not thrilled about the depth of coverage and that two of three articles are by the same reporter. Another article or two, particularly demonstrating coverage outside of five months in 2014 would make me feel better. At best I can say I am neutral on their inclusion and I will so note under my nomination statement. JbhTalk 13:18, 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. MelanieN (talk) 01:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bill gates harvard commencement speech 2007

Bill gates harvard commencement speech 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bill Gates has delivered many speeches over the years. There is no reason to think this particular speech of his is sufficiently noteworthy to deserve an article to itself. Contested PROD. SJK (talk) 11:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 12:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to be glib, but I couldn't resist. Here are some articles on speeches: I Have a Dream, Gettysburg Address, We shall fight on the beaches, This was their finest hour, etc. Granted, these have historical import, and are not commencement addresses. MisterRandomized (talk) 08:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the vast majority of speeches are insufficiently notable for a standalone article. That is true even for highly notable figures like Abraham Lincoln or Winston Churchill. How many speeches did Lincoln or Churchill each deliver over their respective careers? Many dozens, probably hundreds. How many of those are notable enough for a standalone article? A handful at best. So, even when spoken by especially notable persons, the vast majority of speeches are not notable enough for a standalone article. That suggests the notability bar for speeches is quite high – and a handful of sources mentioning this speech is not enough to bring it over the bar. Also, I think this speech was given less than ten years ago; it is too early to say whether it has lasting historical significance. Churchill's and Lincoln's speeches are old enough now that we can answer that question. For this speech, come back in a few decades and ask the question again then. SJK (talk) 09:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG simply requires significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. You acknowledge coverage but claim it fails WP:GNG. What is it about the coverage that makes it fail in your opinion? ~Kvng (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The NPR mention is insubstantial, and the "Right Attitudes" is some guy's blog and lacks editorial oversight. The other mentions I found were also bloggers or WP:ROUTINE coverage simply noting the existence of said speech. I'm sure he is a great guy, he appears to be a philanthropist. MisterRandomized (talk) 08:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 3 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. MelanieN (talk) 01:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Defense Devil

AfDs for this article:
Defense Devil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite the last AFD resulting as a keep, I believe there is no longer any justification in this article's notability. There were various sources brought up in the AFD last time which do not seem to be applicable, or were just not looked into deep enough at the time. For instance, the Issue #184 of the French Animeland magazine shows that the series received coverage in that issue, but it doesn't show what the coverage entailed, and there's no way to verify the contents of the issue. The next 5 links were for "web reviews", but when I went to the archived links, they didn't reveal any reviews. The next two links were from the "French manganews website", but you can see that these were user-submitted reviews, the first written by "Koiwai" and the second one by "Shaedhen", neither of whom seem to be affiliated with the website as part of an editorial staff or something like that. So then we get to the last link from a German animanga website, but even if this one review is notable, it alone certainly doesn't satisfy the "significant coverage" stipulated by WP:GNG, and by extension, WP:BK. 十八 05:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --十八 05:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. --十八 05:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Fairly established Manga title, published by Shonen jump, Japans largest Manga publisher. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While you're right that the Animeland web reviews don't seem to exist, the magazine review clearly exists (verified because it's on the official website) and would constitute some form of coverage considering that it was in a print magazine. (It's listed in the general "magazine" section along with interviews and other columns, so definitely not minor) The MangaNews reviewer names say "MN Team" on them and if you go on their profiles say "editor and columnist" and "MN columnist", so these are staff reviews. Manga Sanctuary contains several staff reviews. Planete BD has mini reviews. Splash Comics also has reviews. This should be enough to satisfy notability and all sources mentioned are considered reliable by the Anime and manga WikiProject's consensus. Lastly, just a sidenote (not targeted towards you personally Juhachi) that this project as a whole needs to start considering foreign licensing as an indicator of notability; when we see a series has been licensed in North America we usually consider it as notable because it has the heft of actual translation and publication behind it and resulting reviews, but because it's published in a foreign country who's language we can't read, we somehow consider it different even though the markets for anime and manga there are just as large, if bigger. (There's certainly an implicit anglophone bias) The fact that it was licensed in three different countries alone should be enough for notability. Of course AFD isn't a place to discuss policy, but I still wanted to bring this up. Opencooper (talk) 12:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what you are suggesting was at one time part of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Anime- and manga-related articles, with that page stating that a manga series should be considered notable if it had been licensed in at least two countries outside Japan. However, that was removed from the page when it was pointed out that a Wikiproject's guidelines can't really overrule the notability guidelines. I do think we are overly reliant on English-language sources for anime and manga articles, but I'm not sure there would be support for just giving works a pass if they have been licensed in several countries. Calathan (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the illuminating response Calathan. That explains a lot. You're right that a WikiProject can't really trump the actual notability guidelines. Still I'd hope that it could serve as a hint that the series could have coverage in non-English sources. I guess we just have to try to be more vigilant at AfD for that possibility. (Even here I wouldn't have thought to search for non-English coverage if the nominator hadn't brought it up from the previous discussion) Opencooper (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:01, 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. MelanieN (talk) 01:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Bharali

Arun Bharali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

He exists, he works in the entertainment industry and doing fine, but I couldn't establish that he meets WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability for almost 8 years; hopefully we can now get this resolved. Boleyn (talk) 07:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 12:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 12:19, 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 redirect to The Four Postmen. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 16:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Kaminsky

AfDs for this article:
Matt Kaminsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:SPA creator has not established that he meets WP:ENT or WP:GNG and neither could I. Has been tagged for notability for nearly 8 years, unresolved. Last AfD closed as no consensus 2 years ago, only attracted 1 comment. Hopefully we can now get it resolved. Boleyn (talk) 07:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 12:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 12:20, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 16:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nat Benchley

Nat Benchley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's nothing particularly convincing for WP:CREATIVE, WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG, my searches have found nothing particularly convincing aside from these links but none of them actually insinuate any solid coverage (searches at News, Highbeam and News Archive found nothing). SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 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 keep. Snow keep DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joanne Fluke

Joanne Fluke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Borderline notable at best as my searches here, here (the best basically and the links fade before about page #10), here, here, [Charles Harrington Elster here] and here all found links but the best one is basically the Publishers Weekly from the News above, and although detailed it may be, this still seems questionable mainly supported by that one article, I have examined the other articles from those listed links and I found nothing outstandingly convincing. She's apparently a New York Times Best-Seller but that's also not always inheritable to notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:57, 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 keep. MelanieN (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Onyeka Nwelue

Onyeka Nwelue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My searches at News, Books, browsers, Higbeam and Nigerian newspapers (Vanguard and ThisDayLive) have found nothing better than a few links at The Nation (here) but looking at those articles still questions solid independent notability. The user apparently was an SPA who was heavily active only to this article it seems and there's nothing else from the history which is convincing. Notifying 2014 tagger Versace1608. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister 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. North America1000 22:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neelam Kumar Phull

Neelam Kumar Phull (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

His full name has not shown any links at News, Books, browsers, Highbeam and WP:INADFD, and the current article gives no insinuations for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:59, 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 speedy delete. no possibility of notability whatsoever, the papers on GS are almost uncited; it can only serve as a n advertisement, nobody who understands and I'm therefore deleting as both G11 and A7. I additionally mention that I have learned to look very careful at articles on people in this specialty unless they hold named professorships or heave held national professional office. DGG ( talk ) 17:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kambiz Jacob Cohen-Kashi

Kambiz Jacob Cohen-Kashi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I initially simply examined this until I concluded it was non-notable and my searches at News, Books, browsers, Highbeam have found nothing aside from 2 links at Google Scholar, thus nothing here actually suggests the applicable notability. Asking DGG's analysis of whom I've would've asked even if I had not nominated since it seemed questionable. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 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 no consensus. North America1000 04:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry Hannon

Kerry Hannon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:BIO. The tags have been there since April 2015 and no additional sources have been added. A google news search for her revealed a lot of results but they are all passing mentions or articles she wrote. No result is about her. CerealKillerYum (talk) 06:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete agree fails WP:BIO. Not a notable person EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk), 8:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Found some reviews: Great Jobs for Everyone 50+, "It's a lot of ground to cover, but Hannon's practical, empowering book is an all-encompassing career resource for older workers in a variety of life situations." in USA Today[59], Love Your Job, "The book is very well written but does inevitably come from a US perspective. This sometimes makes it feel somewhat distant, but it does have some golden nuggets." by The Marketing Society[60], "While those interested in a reboot or who feel that a job or career change is impractical will benefit most from this book, others set on making a transition to another workplace will find Hannon’s recommendations for updating skills particularly useful. Hannon’s considerate tone reflects years of experience as a career adviser; she does not minimize the reality of an unsatisfying workplace situation as she leads you to a more optimistic outlook and experience of your work." in San Francisco Book Review[61]; also some awards: What’s Next? Follow Your Passion and Find Your Dream Job 2011 Bronze Ippy award[62], What’s Next? Finding Your Passion and Your Dream Job in Your Forties, Fifties, and Beyond 2014 Gold Ippy award[63], Love Your Job 2015 Bronze National Mature Media Award[64], 2015 Foreword Reviews' INDIEFAB Book of the Year Award Finalist (Career)[65], so Keep. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AUTHOR Paragraph 4 says "The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." The above paragraph is stating that she meets the requirements of 4(c). The issue with the above is that several of the reviews or awards are non-notable. SanFransiscoBookReview.com? That looks like a hobbiest site trying to earn a commission from the book's Amazon sale. The Marketing Society is a non-notable marketing association of only 2,700 individuals in the UK. She did win the IPPY award, but bronze in 2011. She did win Gold in 2014 but there are more than 30 other Gold awards given that year. The only notable review on the list was the USA Today one. One notable review and a Gold award in a year where 29 other Gold awards were given doesn't cut it as "significant critical attention." CerealKillerYum (talk) 00:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, but i did not say she meets 4C, there is also WP:AUTHOR"3.The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.", i listed 3 reviews, there are more out there as brought out by Megalibrarygirl, and as for the spurious reasoning "and a Gold award in a year where 29 other Gold awards were given doesn't cut it", the same thing could be said about the BAFTAs or the Oscars "an award in a year where over 20 other awards are given doesn't cut it" (and don't get me started on Olympic medals, "a medal where nearly 1000 medals are given every four years doesn't cut it") Coolabahapple (talk) 03:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to Coolabahapple's sources I have a biography [66], an article about her and retiring [67], Review in RS about one of her books [68], AARP review of her book [69], consultant on NPR [70],[71] called "career expert" by CNBC [72], Washington Post article [73], Washington Post Live Chat Guest [74], short review in the Washington Post [75], A press release about fellows program for Journalists in Aging from the Gerontological Society of America [76] (btw, press releases can be reliable, just not independent), Money magazine interview [77], testimony in front of US Senate [78] and Duke University short review [79]. Some of the links come from databases, but you should still be able to read the abstracts. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: We are not WP:LINKEDIN. I can see her mentioned in sources, but not profiles of her life in news sources. She's a competent professional in her field, who in 2009, submitted to Wikipedia, "a page authorized by the person about whom it is written."--Milowent • hasspoken 17:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:30, 20 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) 06:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just ran a proquest news archives search to compliment the highbeam search. I got hundreds of articles that validate notability, coverage of her long career as a financial writer. Here are some reviews of Great Jobs for Everyone 50+ The Miami Times [80]. Washington Post [81]. The Gannett review ran in multiple papers [82] There were more reviews. Followed by a slew of interviews. Example: "You can find 'Great Jobs' after age 50: Author Kerry Hannon offers tips for nailing down a new career" USA Today [83]. Plus numerous articles about talks she gave about the book. And articles where she is interviewed as an expert on getting a job after 50. And that's just one of her books. I agree with Coolabahapple and Megalibrary girl that this is Keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:07, 3 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. MelanieN (talk) 01:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First Lutheran Church (Winthrop, Minnesota)

First Lutheran Church (Winthrop, Minnesota) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No assertion of notability is made in article, no indication of notability found John from Idegon (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 16:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 16:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notabiliity is asserted: it is a historic church founded in1884 (old by US standards, esp. Minnesota). It's a matter of interpretation and preferences. I have not edited here, but I prefer writing to be a bit more subtle than in-your-face "X is important because...". --doncram 21:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I think the claim that this is an old church is a really weak claim of notability, and much of it is implied, but it's there. Now, being able to say "This is the oldest church of this denomination in the region, and it's a historic place, and it's also unique for these reasons, etc etc...." would make notability that much clearer. But for now, there's nothing here that would warrant deletion. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Assertion of notability is not a requirement of articles, anyhow. No assertion of notability is not a valid deletion reason at AFD, despite it being a speedy-delete reason. At AFD what matters is existence of reliable sources, and such has not been questioned here. So the nomination is not valid. --doncram 13:38, 27 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) 06:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Google newspapers search brings up at least two articles about the church: one about a fire, ruled accidental, in 1981, causing 30k damage; other about its organ and Hendricksen(sp?) Organ Company getting its start there. Can't copy paste from the interface I'm using, stopping. I expect there's more. --doncram 06:33, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG with multiple, independent sources.--TM 21:14, 5 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. MelanieN (talk) 01:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Ambassador to Cote d'Ivoire

Indian Ambassador to Cote d'Ivoire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

ambassador articles do not have inherent notability. This one is full of primary sources LibStar (talk) 08:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. LibStar's mass attempts at deletion on articles about ambassador positions despite his poor track record at those nominations actually getting consensus is getting tiresome. This is getting to be the kind of thing that needs a topic ban. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:27, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
refer WP:ADHOM. you've made zero attempt to demonstrate notability of the subject. Your comments add zero to establishing notability and are getting tiresome because you consistently make no effort to discuss the actual subject of deletion using vague WP:ADHOM or I can see sources without stating them arguments. these type of non genuine comments that do not seriously establish notability and do not discourage me but rather show you just want to oppose my nominations based on WP:ADHOM rather than any genuine good faith attempt to discuss how the article meets a specific notability guideline. LibStar (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There have been similar articles deleted like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ambassador of Colombia to Russia. LibStar (talk) 15:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are suggesting inherent notability. There is no such thing for bilateral relations let alone ambassador articles. LibStar (talk) 15:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- There are around 200 sovereign nations in the world. Are we going to have 40,000 of these articles all saying nothing but "The ambassador of Derpland to Foozbleckistan performs diplomatic duties between Derpland and Foozbleckistan. He has a residence in Foozbleck City."? This article contains almost no actual content, and there is no prospect of it ever having any. There is no such thing as inherent notability, contentless microstubs degrade rather than improve the encyclopedia, and arguments of WP:IDONTLIKELIBSTAR are objectively invalid. Reyk YO! 19:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
thanks Reyk, Drover's Wife's comments are WP:ADHOM attacks if I ever saw it. LibStar (talk) 03:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While it's admirable that this person is an ambassador, there is no inherent notability as such. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show that this individual passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 15:00, 20 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) 06:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No inherent notability and no significant coverage beyond routine mentions and statements. There are some X Ambassador to Y articles that are actually notable and can be expanded to substantial content. This is not one of them. No longer a penguin (talk) 10:26, 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. MelanieN (talk) 01:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Rokni

David Rokni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources to establish notability. The BLPPROD tag was removed. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. st170etalk 18:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. st170etalk 18:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I do not think deleting it and telling me to spend my time recreating it, after I already spent time doing research, is the way to go...That sounds like a bizarre and counterproductive policy to me, certainly not one that will encourage anyone to contribute constructively to Wikipedia.--Geewhiz (talk) 11:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Gilabrand: Actually, G5 only applies to articles whose only substantial contributor is the blocked user. Since you have expanded the article, G5 no longer applies. (Tag has been removed.) WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject is definitely notable, since colonel Rokni is really a legendary person in Israeli Culture :). There are enough independent sources, confirming his notability. Article in it's current form is definitely stub and need to be expanded, but it's not the reason to delete it. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:49, 26 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) 06:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Meets notabilty guidelines, but is a stub and needs expansion KGirlTrucker87 talk what I'm been doing 11:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Person is well known in Israel. Gilabrand has done a good job bringing it up to an acceptable stub. It needs expansion, of course. As an aside, the "banned sockpuppet" is not a disruptive editor in the traditional sense; he is just a good faith editor who can't remember his password and lacks competence. He is clearly trying to help the encyclopedia but his editing is disruptive as-is. If only we could get in contact with him (in Hebrew, if necessary) and reason with him? He could be rehabilitated into a useful editor if only he would talk to us! AnotherNewAccount (talk) 16:55, 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. MelanieN (talk) 01:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vuk Krakovic

Vuk Krakovic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and wouldn't pass WP:MUSICBIO either. I cannot find significant coverage of the subject in reliable independent sources. The best I found were [84], [85] and [86] (first seems like a university press release and the other two seem to be an event listing with some biographical content). The only verifiable fact I know is that Krakovic is the husband of Singaporean poet Grace Chia (see [87]) Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 18:40, 20 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) 06:02, 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. MelanieN (talk) 01:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sargon of Akkad (YouTube)

Sargon of Akkad (YouTube) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only sources are two opinion pieces, do not believe subject is notable PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I found this from Inside Higher Ed, which discusses his promotion of one of the many unremarkable conspiracies theory surrounding Gamergate, but it's not even close to enough. Many opinion pieces, but even most of those are lumping him in with Phil Mason and others as part of a list of anti-feminist or "anti-3rd-wave feminist" video bloggers. Not much else. Grayfell (talk) 06:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing here including for minimal notability, I would've considered PROD instead but I wouldn't be surprised if we'll need G4 later though. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SwisterTwister: I did initially PROD the article, but it was disputed. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:29, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what that link is supposed to prove. Accounting for Google's over-estimation of the number of hits they found, I see ~60 articles, few of which are reliable, and several of which are about ancient emperor. Having looked through those before !voting, many of these mentions are in the comment sections, which are totally useless for notability. Grayfell (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, the nominator was deleting sources [91] before claiming that the “only sources are two opinion pieces.” I must admit that the sources weren’t the best ones, but it showed notability of the subject of the article. Moreover, a Youtube-vid regarding SoA at the Rubin Report was deleted by the same user for being a “youtube-video,” [92] which is a too strict way to use WP:YT. If the lack of sources was the real problem, the conduct of this user would have been different, I think.Jeff5102 (talk) 10:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And now, reinserting the youtube-vid of the confirmed, official channel of the Rubin Report is reverted by Peter because "The 'Rubin Report' youtube channel is, unfortunately, not a reliable source"[93] If the Rubin Report is not a reliable source for who appears on the Rubin Report, I do not know what would be reliable for that. I am suspecting bad faith here.Jeff5102 (talk) 10:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Rubin Report is a redlink, and I'm fairly sure it's not even remotely reliable or notable. We don't mention every youtube video a person has appeared in by sourcing it to the youtube video in question. We would only mention a person has appeared in a youtube video if there were a reason for this to be notable (e.g. non youtube coverage). PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redlink? I checked it, and both the youtube-link of the show (in which Sargon was the main guest), as the link to the wikipage to the Rubin Report (in which Sargon is listed as guest) work fine with me. But that aside: don't switch the argument from reliability to notability. Jeff5102 (talk) 11:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rubin Report (as in your edit summary) is a redlink. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
..and edit summaries are more important than the contents of the article because...?Jeff5102 (talk) 11:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was explaining what I was talking about when I mentioned the redlink. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Having been interviewed on a show is generally not in itself significant. Interviews are not independent sources, which limits their usefulness for notability. While this could potentially be used as a source for opinions or non-controversial details in the article, it does little to address the underlying problem. It's not like we have a lack of sources for Sargon's opinions, after all. The problem is not just a low Google hit-count, its a lack of usable independent sources, per WP:NBIO etc. Grayfell (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Lark

AfDs for this article:
Shannon Lark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The last discussion years ago was no consensus but I'm still not sure about the notability here. Note that this content was removed but ultimately it seems like she was known for a some film (and that's not even clear, the one blue link is for a 12-minute spoof that isn't related) and then for creating a website which doesn't seem notable. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:45, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:46, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:46, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The last AfD stated that the page's COI edits does not deem that it should be deleted and that the subject has a cult following in the horror genre. From a Google News search, it shows that she have news coverage in horror film websites and this can be concluded that she has a following but the coverage comes mostly from two sites, ShockTillYouDrop and HorrorMovies.ca, both of which do not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The only good reference for her is this one in Complex [94] which covers her extensively but it is only 1 reference. Since the last AfD in 2011, no coverage has been added about her besides mere mentions. This, IMO, shows that she isn't notable and doesn't meet WP:N. She doesn't have "significant coverage from reliable sources" as 1 source is not enough. CerealKillerYum (talk) 16:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per rationale by @CerealKillerYum, which I adopt. Quis separabit? 14:12, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 16:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial Suicide (album)

Commercial Suicide (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:NMUSIC. Fact magazine doesn't appear to pass the bar for a reliable source, either. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 14:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 14:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Fact and Factmag.com have been well-established, influential players in music for well over a decade. Their review płus AllMusic's satisfies WP:NALBUM. Newman is a reasonably significant artist, so more write-ups are clearly out there. SteveStrummer (talk) 06:16, 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 02:41, 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. MBisanz talk 01:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Estoclet

Adam Estoclet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 04:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:NHOCKEY/LA the Italian league is lower-level and can only satisfy criterion #4 of NHOCKEY, which is "achieved preeminent honors." He has received no honors and fails NHOCKEY. Joeykai (talk) 06:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)\[reply]
But did he received enough coverage to pass WP:GNG? If so, whether he meets WP:NHOCKEY is irrelevant. Rlendog (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That really is up to you to proove if you think that is the case. -DJSasso (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rlendog, you do ask this question a fair bit, and Djsasso is right: the onus is on an editor who seeks to save an article to produce qualifying sources. If you have, please do let us know. If you hadn't, why raise the subject? Ravenswing 13:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because merely failing WP:NHOCKEY is not a valid reason to delete, since failing the specific criteria is irrelevant if the subject passes WP:GNG. In order to have an effective discussion the nominator should at least check for WP:GNG and state why the coverage found was insufficient (even as simple as "I did a Google search and found only routine coverage.") But in a number of recent cases, this nominator has started AfDs and I have looked for coverage and easily found significant coverage in a Google search. If the nominator is unwilling to do even a cursory search for sources (I note that you and DJSasso have responded to my comments on this subject, but not the nominator himself, and the two of you have bothered looking for sources), it is not appropriate to expect others to do so, WP:BEFORE. 17:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlendog (talk • contribs)
Be aware that you should assume good faith. Just because someone doesn't mention it in their nomination statement, does not mean they have not done it. The whole purpose of NHOCKEY is a quick way to say if it is likely someone passes GNG or does not pass GNG so it is a completely valid deletion argument until it is proven that they do meet GNG. In saying that I do agree that they very much need to increase what they say in their nomination statements and have mentioned it to them on their talk page. Hopefully they will take that message to heart. -DJSasso (talk) 11:26, 2 June 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) 06:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He fails WP:NHOCKEY and any coverage on him is routine sports coverage so he fails WP:GNG as well. Deadman137 (talk) 02:09, 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. MBisanz talk 01:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Mulenga Chipimo

Joseph Mulenga Chipimo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Student businessman not yet notable per WP:BIO. Article creator has a clear WP:COI, possibly autobiography: I've been removing unsourced puffery repeatedly added by the WP:SPA creator, and reverting tag removals by a second WP:SPA account. The photos of him were all uploaded as "my own work" by the article creator, and the original draft had a great deal of unsourced info about his childhood. All of the references are blogs (including the "Lusaka Times"), and I can't find any coverage of him or his employment website online from WP:RS. WP:TOOSOON at best. OnionRing (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 01:13, 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. MBisanz talk 01:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UnKindness Of Ravens

UnKindness Of Ravens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is a novel by this name and a group of ravens is called an unkindness. Both of these alternative usages turn up significantly more Google results that this band. Doubtful, at best, that this group satisfies WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Safiel (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:00, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. Discussion about a potential merge can continue on the article's talk page if desired. North America1000 23:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Supercute!

Supercute! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN band, doesn't meet basic coverage guidelines in 1, and doesn't meet any of the other 11 criteria either, basically because their discography is one indie EP that never charted anywhere. I'm sure they toured at some point, but there's no independent coverage. MSJapan (talk) 04:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Rachel Trachtenburg as one of her several musical projects. Whatever attention the band received was largely because it's two core members are (were?) teen fashion models. As an independent notable entity it really didn't get much attention despite some money going into the effort , and I'm finding little other than self-promotion. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - I wasn't aware of the chronology, but it does explain the circular referencing in a lot of articles related to Trachtenburg (there's a lot of NN stuff that appears superficially notable due to bluelinks to other NN related articles). MSJapan (talk) 23:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 18:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:56, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America1000 23:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lou Guzzo

Lou Guzzo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Still questionable for all applicable notability and I have found only expected mentions at News, Books and Highbeam, nothing noticeably convincing. SwisterTwister talk 23:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Scholar also shows some widely-cited works. GNG is met, and this gentleman's career was almost entirely before the advent of the Internet, so I'm not to worried about it "barely" making it, per WP:NTEMP, he needn't have ongoing coverage to remain notable after his death. Jclemens (talk) 06:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 17:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:53, 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 redirect to Take That. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 16:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Higher Than Higher

Higher Than Higher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only reference appears to be song's own web site, so not notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:53, 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. MBisanz talk 01:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Randall Fontes

AfDs for this article:
Randall Fontes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG, fringe scientist with almost no sources. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:44, 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 keep. Notability has been established. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 16:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Young-jae Jung

Young-jae Jung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing particularly convincing of any applicable notability and I have found only expected mentions at Books, News and Highbeam, nothing noticeably better to suggest better improvements. SwisterTwister talk 23:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:36, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete I found a few sources dating 2008-2012, but in most of them, the subject was mentioned in passing (some of them were event listings). At this time I don't think there is enough coverage to support having a separate article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:59, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America1000 23:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Collins (radio presenter)

Ian Collins (radio presenter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Still questionable for all applicable notability and I have found nothing convincingly better at all to suggest better improvements. Also, looking through the history shows this has never contained anything outstandingly better, my searches show there's nothing to therefore suggest a better article. SwisterTwister talk 23:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - surprised that no more sources can be found for such a full article. Has the article's creator been directly approached? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the article's creator should be approached. Tom29739 [talk] 20:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's no actual active author now as it seems this was started in 2005 but a now not-active user (since 2011) thus there's no one to ask. SwisterTwister talk 20:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:36, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there are a number of sources listed in the "Press" section of his website [102]. Most of them are not available online, but at least this one is: [103], and it's fairly substantial. I found other shorter references to his show and quotes from him, in the Guardian [104], the Express [105], the Independent [106], and so on. Can anyone find a source to back up the statement that his show is "the UK's most listened to current affairs/topical debate programme"? -- IamNotU (talk) 18:35, 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 Albrecht Behmel. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 16:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Stronghold (novel)

The Stronghold (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced article about a non-notable novel. TheLongTone (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC) I'm also nominating the below, for essentially the same reason. Only two refs are the author's blog and a book published thirty years before the work in question.[reply]

Doktor Faust und Mephisto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect both to Albrecht Behmel. I tried searching for sourcing for both books and found nothing. If there is sourcing, it's not on the Internet but given that both released in the last 3-4 years, my reaction is that there likely isn't anything out there but redirecting would allow for their recreation if/when the sourcing does become available. It may be worthwhile to look to see if the author himself passes NAUTHOR though, given that both of these works seem to fail NBOOK. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 'and Redirect because there's simply nothing to suggest the needed notability can come anytime soon, and thus is perhaps best deleted and then restarted if needed. SwisterTwister talk 20:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:34, 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. MBisanz talk 01:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FRANKIE (band)

FRANKIE (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON article about a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC, and not enough reliable source coverage as of yet to satisfy WP:GNG. The strongest claim here is that their debut EP hit #36 on the campus radio charts -- but per NMUSIC #2, charting can only be the notability in and of itself if it happens on an IFPI-certified chart on the order of Billboard. And apart from a review of the EP in Exclaim!, all of the other sourcing here is to primary sources (including their own website and a press release for their EP's release party) and blurbs in local publications which are not substantive enough or widely distributed enough to carry GNG. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when they can be more adequately sourced as satisfying an NMUSIC criterion. Bearcat (talk) 13:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 18:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:27, 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. Consensus is that the subject fails both WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Armin Aganovic

Armin Aganovic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has played in the highest level of Irish football, which is confirmed as not fully pro per WP:FPL, meaning that this does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:24, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:28, 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 delete. MBisanz talk 01:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Majid Khan (Pakistani diplomat)

Abdul Majid Khan (Pakistani diplomat) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable . The 2 sources provided do not cover this person in depth but merely confirm he held this position. LibStar (talk) 17:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination Kayser Ahmad (talk) 19:24, 3 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 22:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jaycob Megna

Jaycob Megna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 07:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 15:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that a number of AfDs opened by this nominator have met GNG, and others at least have some coverage which if the nominator feels is insufficient should say why, in order to open an effective discussion on the issue. Rlendog (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, that doesn't actually matter. If he feels it doesn't meet GNG all he has to say is that he doesn't think it does. It is up to those that want to keep it to say why it meets GNG. And yes he should do WP:BEFORE but that doesn't mean he has to comment other than to say he thinks it does or doesn't from that search. -DJSasso (talk) 11:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Of note is that per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles, which one of the !votes appears to be solely based upon. North America1000 00:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously he currently fails WP:NHOCKEY. All the coverage about him looks to be routine sports coverage and two of the citations about this player are written about his brother. So I would say that he fails to pass WP:GNG. Deadman137 (talk) 04:22, 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 no consensus. Some fairly unconvincing arguments on both sides. No prejudice against renomination individually as the bundled nomination seems to have hampered the discussion here. Jenks24 (talk) 14:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Hoaen

Richard Hoaen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Alexander Hayne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lee Shi Tian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Makihito Mihara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Martin Jůza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

All of these articles have little or no coverage by independent, reliable sources. Apologies for the inconsistency of nominating these afds, I thought it was better to nominate them separately but I changed my mind Prisencolin (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 13:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did interviews on ChannelFireball with all four of them. Does that count as a source? Hoaen, Mihara, Tian and Juza. I am not going to link my own stuff (as I believe I shouldn't), but these things exist nevertheless. If that counts as a source, then I am voting keep for all four. OdinFK (talk) 14:41, 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 00:03, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_May_28&oldid=1142621354"