Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 24

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Ralston (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)

Dele6e: as non-notable actor -- only 9 films to his career. Quis separabit? 23:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He is not even billed in Huckleberry Finn. In the case of Polyanna he may be the male lead, but it is the females who really have the top roles. Beyond this IMDb is not a reliable source. Wikipedia is not meant to serve as a directory of all people who appeared in Holyywood films, so there is no justification for this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per John Pack Lambert's comment. Aoba47 (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Million Dollar Girl (TV series) (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)

Show with little notability to be found-this was prodded and deleted before by the way. Wgolf (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Show lacks coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 22:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- I know this article needs a lot of improvement but it meets the notability of wikipedia thus this page should be here.Tupur16 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Tupur16: I would suggest either improving the article directly, or providing a list of reliable sources here about the television series to support your argument. Aoba47 (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This soap opera was on-air for only about 3-months. Mid Day reported it as upcoming show on 4-Feb-2015, and Times of India that, it will be closed in Jun-2015. However, the number of episodes are more than a hundred. For coverage is in reliable sources, here is what I was able to find: [1], [2], [3]. As of now, I'm unconvinced that this topic meets GNG. If anyone can find better sources, ping me. Anup [Talk] 18:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The number of episode is verified from official source plz check it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tupur16 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tupur16: Be honest and answer, how are you related to this tv show? (See: Why this article is being considered for deletion). Anup [Talk] 21:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ Anup I never thought that I need to be related with this show for voicing my opinion. For u r kind information let me tell u that I am not personaly or professinaly related with this show if I was related I never write the article so poorly. In my country channel V is not available and I never saw any episode of this serial. I find the name of serial through Vikram Singh Chauhan's page. I thought a serial can be notable for an article in wikipedia. For that whatever information I found in internet I give it here and leave it for other to improve this article. I have no problem with this article's deletion. Here I am only voicing my opinion as like you nothing else. Please stop personal attack. I think doing personal attack is againt wikipedia's rule. I hope you will never do it again with anyone. Plz be polite to everyone. As far as I can remember you were rude to me during another discussion before. Tupur16 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- I suggest redirection for this page as it is not completely unnotable. I think it would be better to redirect the page to Channel V where the serial used to broadcast.Ishi2345 (talk) 13:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable television series Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:34, 1 November 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Bahnsen (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 evidence of notability. The refs are mostly him appearing on various TV channels giving his opinions. Others include an obituary of his father and directory style listings. The only opinion piece is from "Affluent Christian Investor" which looks anything but independent. Nothing from any reliable sources about what others think of him. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable financial commentator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The article sources written by the subject don't help it pass the WP:GNG or WP:BIO. A Train^talk 14:06, 25 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shred Nations (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 (without explanation of why contested); no sign of sufficient coverage to meet WP:CORP David Biddulph (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This is unambiguous spam, written by an SPA that almost certainly has an undisclosed COI. I haven't been able to find a single, non-trivial mention of the company in a reliable source. Joe Roe (talk) 01:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not only is this nearly speedy material, but it's also clear advertising from several paths than only one: one is the clear advertising account and its contributions, the next is the overall advertising information and sources and the last one is the fact none of is this anything actually convincing; I'll note this was in fact deleted once before and I'll note any attempts at restarting as advertising again will surely get barred (salt) from said advertising happening again. SwisterTwister talk 02:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm unable to find any independent coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 01:57, 31 October 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. No objections to speedy renomination (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sanitek Armenia (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 apparent credible assertion of significance or notability. Listing for community input. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Useful and informative article. Don't see a necessary to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.142.19.242 (talk) 20:32, 19 October 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. No objections to speedy renomination (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson (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)

Promotional article, mostly puffery. References in RSes mostly passing mentions. No evidence of actually passing WP:NMUSIC. Basic WP:BEFORE (though it's a hard name to search on) turn up nothing better. David Gerard (talk) 22:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 22:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:BAND. Yintan  13:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it. Not just because I started it, but also because all it needs is a little touching up to meet the required standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohawkmarcje (talk • contribs) 09:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 14:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lynette Long (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 am the creator and administrator of the Lynette Long Wikipedia page. I no longer wish for this page to up. My name is Connor Grill and this page has been requested to be deleted by my person as this was an experimental page and no longer wish for it to be visible. Thank you for your time and I look forward to creating permanent Wikipedia pages in the near future. I appreciate your support on this matter. -Connor Grill, admin of Lynette Long.--Connorgrill (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment commented on user's talk page re WP:OWN, the possibility of Speedy G7, and the malformed AFD nomination. Meters (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Added {{afd2}} template. --Finngall ^talk 21:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- notable as WP:AUTHOR with wide library holdings: link and as WP:ACADEMIC for the "latchkey kids" work. Plenty of sources are available. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep by WP:AUTHOR and WorldCat alone, the nomination is not convincing for the serious case that is deletion. SwisterTwister talk 21:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 1, 1995 (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)

Unless this is part of some series of articles that I am unaware of, I am note sure that the subject of the article meets WP:GNG. Not to mention the article seems to stray quite a bit from the actual subject of the article. For example, "the connected astrological sign for this date is Pisces. A symbol of a fish represents Pisces. The element for Pisces is water.." Needs to either be rewritten to highlight the actual notable events that occurred on this day, or deleted. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Anything of note could be added to the March 1 article. The specific date with year however is not notable. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- is this perhaps a joke article? :-) It opens thusly:

• March 1, 1995 was a Wednesday. Bill Clinton was the President of the United States. ^[1] Holidays on this date include Saint David's Day and Self-injury Awareness Day. The connected astrological sign for this date is Pisces.

K.e.coffman (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing notable about this day. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - other than the founding of Yahoo!, nothing really historic happened on this date. Bearian (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are plenty of sources that provide accounts of the events that occurred on any given day of the last 100 or so years, but I am very hesitant to create a precedent where every day in history gets its own encyclopedia article. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• DElete -- Allowing it would create a precedent that we would regret for having a daily article on every day. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 30 October 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. Overwhelming consensus to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Recreation of a page recently deleted via WP:PROD. Sources listed include Bloomberg directory listing (which is non RS for notability) and information about funding. Significant RS cannot be found to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Created by Special:Contributions/Prashant32 with no other contributions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete Seems like article written by none other than founders themselves (or influenced), It will not be surprise if the founder seeks their own page from sometime now by building this page for their base. Highest degree of non-notable promotional content. From company Promotional writing of an article to references used for press or news coverage. References are PR exercise of company or clearly influenced by the company the way it is being covered by media. If we have to make a Wikipedia page for being an encyclopedia in this manner. It will be flooded with thousands of worldwide funding company daily. wikipedia is not a portfolio or directory of such company.Light2021 (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have created this page to contribute to wikipedia community. I love to write about the growing companies in India. I am following this company from many years now so I thought to create the wiki page to share the information about it. I am new to wikipedia so I request you to help me to understand the things which are missing in the article. I will make the changes as early as possible. I am doing more research about the company which will add value to the readers.Prashant32 (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2016 (IST)

• Delete and salt as literally a restarted advertisement deleted a sheer 4 days ago and with the same blatant information only existing to advertise the company and its services (the same can be said about the sources, which are notorious "pay-for" websites), certainly none of it becomes substance and nor would it be considering the clear advertising motivations here. SwisterTwister talk 20:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What is missing? I would like to share some reference to clear my point. The below pages are created by using similar information. Can you point out what is the difference in the article that written by me and the pages shown below?Prashant32 (talk) 12:58, 26 October 2016 (IST)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naukri.com https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babajob.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.75.54.254 (talk) 07:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is the most important reason, such junk and spam are being created on Wikipedia, based on other successful startup model or copying them the way they are written. You are missing the Notability of the company itself that Naukri.com has no problem with. It is not about how you write an article. This is created only for promotional purposes and nothing else. This is encyclopedia not Blog-Post or PR distribution network Light2021 (talk) 07:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lacking sufficient non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This one I would agree has nothing in-depth out there and the majority of the news is simply funding - nothing in detail about the company, just the funding. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:42, 27 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Almost a A7 not even a claim to significance, except for the titles of some of its press releases. No significant sources DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nominator. Meatsgains (talk) 18:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Salt considering this was literally speedied before as G11, the history here shows the advertising-only accounts which is a given and there's simply nothing else better because of the blatant PR and advertising in both the information and sources. SwisterTwister talk 20:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As written, the page is just an ad, and my searches didn't turn up any indication that this is more than a run of the mill travel site, so I don't see a substantial likelihood that this could be improved into a real article about a notable subject. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:PLUG Nordic Nightfury 11:21, 31 October 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 Sabarna Sangrahashala. MBisanz ^talk 22:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International History and Heritage Exhibition (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 event. While the museum that hosts this event (Sabarna Sangrahashala) is notable, the event itself is not. The majority of sources for this article are about the museum, but do not mention this event. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anup [Talk] 18:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a notable event. This article is advertising pretending to be informative. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, greetings to all. I am an independent research scholar and teacher who have written this article on the annual international history and heritage exhibition that is held in kolkata every year to create awareness about history and heritage of the land. The exhibition has now become an important event and being a free exhibition thousands of students from various schools and colleges apart from foreigners and common history enthusiasts come to gain knowledge. My writing is not publicity of the exhibition but making people aware of such a great benevolent initiative on the part of the sabarna museum, which again is a charitable trust. Money is nowhere related. There is no ticket, nothing only knowledge about our origin, our culture. Governments of Bhutan and Sri Lanka have appreciated the initiative. Also the Dy. Consular General of Bhutan have inaugurated the exhibition in 2015 proving its importance. If anyone wish I may send scanned copies of the letters from these governments, which are on display at the gallery. The seminars, cultural events and quiz are simply great. I can assure everyone that such a museum and the exhibition occurs nowhere in the world and for this reason most of us fail to realize the exhibition's importance. May be my writing on wikipedia is not of the standard, hence i shaLL humbly request the hon'ble editors to rewrite this article with your skill of writing according to wikipedia's guidelines and with the info i have provided and make it available on wikipedia for the benefit of students and people. I have found some more reference and have added them on the article. Please find them. I may also send scanned copies of several newspaper reports of the exhibition if you need them. My wish is that let people know about this extraordinary exhibition of Kolkata. Who writes the article is not the matter. Please let the article remain. Some editor please do Write it according to the guidelines. Thanks. Devrc (talk) 07:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)Sucharita 25.10.2016[reply]

• Delete-Nothing convinces me at all that it passes the WP:NOTABILITY factor.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 08:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Devrc notes-"My writing is not publicity of the exhibition but making people aware of such a great benevolent initiative on the part of the sabarna museum, which again is a charitable trust. Money is nowhere related."The request for deletion is not at all based on such criterion.Even if it charges exorbitant amounts for entry etc. but has been relayed by several independent, mainstream and strong reliable sources as notable,it shall be in WIKIPEDIA!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 08:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Devrc has also commented--"Governments of Bhutan and Sri Lanka have appreciated the initiative. Also the Dy. Consular General of Bhutan have inaugurated the exhibition in 2015 proving its importance. "In this era of publicity, if one has good links with the bureaucracy, and one's purpose is not dubious,it's not a matter of great pain to churn out such a certificate of appreciation.Further, today we find in WEST BENGAL, everything from pujas to new shopping malls, is inaugurated by a flurry of persons ranging from the Consulate-generals,Chief-Minister and Governor to local counselors and celebs. But we cannot vie for the inclusion of all such articles!.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 08:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the inclusion of newspaper reports in the article as citations by Devrc and his reply, here, that he-"may also send scanned copies of several newspaper reports of the exhibition if you need them.", many prominent newspapers in their local sections publish details about art exhibitions,film screenings etc. in the city, but, if we start listing them at WIKIPEDIA, it becomes a perfect synonym for MESS.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 08:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Devrc further commented-"I can assure everyone that such a museum and the exhibition occurs nowhere in the world and for this reason most of us fail to realize the exhibition's importance."I am regretful but this looks like a blatant exaggeration.....Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 08:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomoskar, I feel that truly when all the editors are feeling that this article must not be included in wikipedia, I accept their opinion and then should i myself delete the info or it can be made that the page is redirected to the original sabarna sangrahashala page? Kindly guide me. Devrc (talk) 09:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC) Sucharita 25.10.2016[reply]

@Devrc: Let the AFD discussion run its course. The result may well be to keep the article, or to redirect it to the article about the museum, or to delete the article. The various editors who take the time to contribute to this discussion will decide. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 10:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Sabarna Sangrahashala which already has a section on this (or plain redirect to that). Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Demetrios Alexatos (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)

Quoting the first AfD nomination by Boleyn: Does not meet WP:GNG or any other part of WP:Notability. The Bronze Wolf award has been given to at least 430 people, and it is clear that he has some significance within the scouting movement, but nothing that I can see makes him clearly notable. It has been claimed that serving on the World Scout Committee and serving as the Camp Chief of a World Scout Jamboree make him notable; however, there is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources to establish that he is notable, WP:NRVE. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Possibly selectively merge to Scouts of Greece § Distinguished members, which already has some content about the subject, and this is also a valid search term. Source searches are not providing enough coverage to meet WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep-The previous deletion was a bad call by a semi-retired admin who couldn't properly spell inherent and who disregarded Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators when there was no clear outcome, two very good arguments for keep (better one being serving as the Camp Chief of a World Scout Jamboree, which is very rare accomplishment (only 23 people), one "I'm not seeing it" delete and one "me too" delete. Boleyn said "Nothing different to suggest things have changed"-I submit designing the current World Scout Emblem, used by the world's largest youth movement, worn over 40 million participants^[1] Enough notability is in the article to say it's worth looking into deeper. I have written the Scouts of Greece to get more information, it is starting to come in and I am adding it to the article as it comes in. JJMC89, it's nice to finally see your true motives come out after a week of badgering this article.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep-I'm thinking Keep, not because of the positions that he held with WOSM, but rather the fact that he held a National level position with Scouts of Greece.Naraht (talk) 02:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I've taken a quick look over the article. He is definitely of major significance to the Greek Scout organization. Admittedly that isn't a huge organization (18,000 current members but given the political changes in Greece over the decades numbers could have been much higher in the past when the king was patron). He has also served significant roles within WOSM which is certainly a major international organization (World Jamboree Camp Chief, World Scout Committee for 6 years [the max allowed, if I'm reading things correctly]). However the sources are a bit weak but good ones are likely to be not readily accessible. I would give the editors some time to see what they can find. Ideally they'll gain support from someone who can actively mine the Greek sources. --Erp (talk) 02:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and nothing weak about it, quite a clear case. The majority of the "sources" cited appear to be based on private communications and thus don't even satisfy WP:V; they certainly cannot be used to justify notability. The claims of importance of the subject in Greek Scouting are not convincing, given the fairly small size of that organization and the fact that it is a youth organization. Ultimately, notability in such cases needs to be convincingly demonstrated on general WP:GNG grounds, that is, by detailed in-depth specific coverage by multiple independent reliable sources. Such coverage has not been brought to light here. Nsk92 (talk) 03:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "sources" as you say are meant to be a stopgap while I research for better material, they are basically markers for saying HOLD ON I AM ON THE PATH OF FINDING STUFF! and would certainly be replaced when I find the reliable documentation that does exist.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 07:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Receiving the Bronze Wolf Award is certainly a notable achievement, as fewer than 350 awards (not 430 as claimed in the first AfD) have been presented in the award's 80 year history. Alexatos also lead the Scouts of Greece for 17 years. Yes, the article needs to be cleaned up, but that is not what AfD is for. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 07:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep-I think keep, for all reasons that have already been stated. As it is, it meets minimum standards and at least one person says it is still a work in process. Give it some time and if after a few months it hasn't established more notability, then merge it into another article.Marauder40 (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Perhaps Alexatos meets WP:ANYBIO per being a recipient of the Bronze Wolf Award. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: Thank you for finding that passage, I'd never seen that one before! He actually meets criterion 1 twice, as well as criterion 2!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:10, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Marauder40. --evrik ^(talk) 17:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Alexatos meets WP:ANYBIO and serving as the Camp Chief of a World Scout Jamboree, which is very rare accomplishment (only 23 people) --Egel _Reaction? 10:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep any of the reasons mentioned above (Bronze Wolf, Camp Chief of World Scout Jamboree, head of the Scouts of Greece) would lend to notability on their own, but combined it makes it pretty clear cut to me as a case of meeting WP:ANYBIO. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kirsten Fehrs (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 I found (including German ones) are WP:ROUTINE annoucements following her election. I do not think being a bishop confers automatic notability. There might be a case via WP:AUTHOR, but I could not find relevant sources with my competence in German. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have unsuccessfully tried to find notability guidelines on religious leaders; only found some on Catholic church leaders. Church positions of different denominations are difficult to compare, but I would say that Kirsten Fehrs' position in one of the large mainstream churches of Germany most certainly is comparable to that of a a diocesan bishop.

I don't know if other language Wikipedias are considered to be an indication of notability, but the German Wikipedia has quite a comprehensive article. --84.190.84.207 (talk) 16:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I was surprised there is nothing religion-specific in WP:BIO (well, there is WP:POLITICIAN and WP:ENTERTAINER, I guess). From my experience of other topics, notability rules at de-wk are weaker than on en. I would indeed have expected coverage for a high-ranking clergy member, but found none. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You must be kidding. :-) The notability rules on de-wk weaker than here? My impression is that it's just the opposite!

But that's beside the point here. You call her a "high-ranking clergy member", and maybe that's the point for notability: She was one of the two highest ranking clergy in the Nordelbische Evangelisch-Lutherische Kirche until its merger in 2012, and she now is one of the three bishops of the Evangelisch-Lutherische Kirche in Norddeutschland with Gerhard Ulrich as its head bishop. (BTW, I am surprised that en-wk does not have an article on him yet, him also being the leading bishop of the VELKD.)

Considering that this is a church body with more than 2 million members, it's not like we are talking about some minor insignificant group here. --84.190.84.207 (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that in general the German Wikipedia is stricter than the English about what articles can be kept, but their guidelines are qualitatively different, in that they concentrate more on intrinsic importance and we concentrate more on the available sources. Either way this subject is clearly notable. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A quick look at the many reliable sources found by clicking on the word "news" in the searches automatically provided above shows extensive ongoing coverage of the subject. There's no need to look beyond the general notability guideline here, but in general bishops or the equivalent in major religious denominations usually turn out to be notable. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the Die Welt article is pretty routine, but NDR is a news site and the article about her there is pretty in depth. Here is another one in Hamburger Abendblatt that is also very in depth and independent from the NDR article. So she seems to meet GNG to me. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES. StAnselm (talk) 23:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Diocesan ELC bishop is probably inherently notable per WP:CLERGY, but even if that doesn't work, she appears to pass GNG per the sources noted by Smmurphy. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, there ARE notability guidelines for clergy after all! (Can't see why I couldn't find them earlier.)

Well, that pretty much settles it, doesn't it? --84.190.90.147 (talk) 06:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Abendblatt piece found by Smmurphy is a good one, and not immediately following the election. WP:CLERGY notwithstanding, I am not convinced bishops are automatically notable, but this one certainly is. Withdrawing the nomination. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:05, 25 October 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. obviously non-notable, even if it exists Jimfbleak (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aloha Music File (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 content, no sources. Been tagged for three years with no progress. McDoobAU93 15:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add "no proof of existence". Practically no results in Google searches excluding Wikipedia. So, no notability at least, possibly even nonexistence. --84.190.84.207 (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 15:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All the Google searches for .AMF2 are copies of this article, or completely unrelated sites. Joseph2302 15:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not seem worthy of inclusion. Searches via Google gave similar results to the last post. Eagleash (talk) 16:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: no sources, no proof that any files exist with the supposed AMF2 extension, no indication even of the existence of the supposed programming company "cpb0mb". Seems like a hoax to me. Richard3120 (talk) 16:07, 24 October 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 00:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clash with DD (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)

Totally un-notable application. There are no independent sources cited, and searches have not provided anything suitable. (PROD contested by the article's creator, who appears to have a conflict of interest.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article writers point of view

It is very shame to speak up for discussion about some experienced Wikipedia editors have a lot of proudness in them and try to suppress the new editors As I believe that internet does not distinguish between people so must the senior editors must follow the same. Independent sources about articles were added at the time the article was created but same problem editors think themself great and tend to remove it please keep the sanity of Wikipedia so it will really contain information or else we will only find articles of pseudonyms on the Wikipedia space(Tiven gonsalves 16:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiven2240 (talk • contribs)

Please don't take it personally, its just that the article does not meet the standard for a subject having its own article on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 14:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Topic lacks coverage from reliable secondary sources. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• VG/RS search shows nothing. Obvious delete. --Izno (talk) 20:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article has no sources other than the official site for the app. For that matter, the article doesn't even clearly explain what the app does. (I note, however, that the article creator has disclosed his status as a paid editor on his userpage for several weeks, so he has been in compliance with Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure since then.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails the WP:GNG - there doesn't seem to be any third party coverage out there. Sergecross73 msg me 14:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's nothing to this app it seems. No RS, no coverage at all, this is the textbook definition of not being notable. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no suggestion of notability. Deb (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• SNOW Delete and Salt (given the past 2 deletions including since they have both happened in this past month) as I in fact planned to nominate myself when I noticed the PROD was boldly contested, this is still entirely advertising and overall unacceptable, none of it convinces actual substance. SwisterTwister talk 03:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 18:55, 27 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie DiMarco (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)

Apparently-promotional article created as part of a batch of Haas-related articles (most of which have since been PRODed or AFDed). Low-quality referencing, questionable WP:GNG notability. Basic WP:BEFORE for me turned up literally two articles actually about her, [4][5], which doesn't quite swing it for me - all other coverage is passing mentions, actually about Advent or share trading information. Perhaps there's more that clearly passes a notability guideline. David Gerard (talk) 14:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 14:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 14:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 14:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as several notes: The history and the sheer long age of this article shows it was in fact only existing for PR advertising, given the fact there were also noticeably focused accounts with this one article, none of it suggests she would in fact be independently notable (especially from the company itself and then there's nothing to suggest anything better since there's also the sheer fact this had been considered for deletion in 2007, so it shows how this was in fact needing deletion (especially now). SwisterTwister talk 17:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 12:45, 27 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zoompass (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)

Everything is promotional and nothing else. No-notability of this organization. If we have to make a Wikipedia page for being an encyclopedia in this manner. wikipedia is not a portfolio or directory of such company Light2021 (talk) 14:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as blatant advertising which has literally been kept as is for over 6 years now, none of it actually forms substance and that's not surprising considering that was how articles and contributions were made at the time, especially (considering the worst part) advertising which is as blatant as it comes. My own searches are not actually finding better than PR and republished PR therefore it's non-negotiable. SwisterTwister talk 20:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Cannot find anything to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. In fact, from what I did find I am not sure the company still exists. There could be a possibility of merging it with EnStream which once owned it. Probably could have done so under WP:BOLD. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:56, 27 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sleekpay (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)

they should add their brochure instead. Everything is promotional and nothing else. No-notability of this organization. If we have to make a Wikipedia page for being an encyclopedia in this manner. wikipedia is not a portfolio or directory of such company. Light2021 (talk) 14:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No apparent sources to be found on Google News as the company appears to have gone belly up. I would make a note to the nominator that promotional tone is a reason to clean up an article, not a policy-based argument for deleting one. A Train^talk 14:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete I don't even see any assertion of notability here, and zero third-party sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This one could have probably went WP:A7. Fails WP:GNG. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:03, 28 October 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 after I tagged it (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 16:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RecargaPay (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)

Everything is promotional and nothing else. No-notability of this organization. If we have to make a Wikipedia page for being an encyclopedia in this manner. wikipedia is not a portfolio or directory of such company. Light2021 (talk) 14:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:59, 24 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WorldNet TPS (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)

From company Promotional writing of an article to references used for press or news coverage. Everything is promotional and nothing else. No-notability of this organization. references are PR exercise of company or clearly influenced by the company the way it is being covered by media. company only mention the Investment news where thousands of company gets seed, angel or any kind of funding on daily basis on each part of the world. If we have to make a Wikipedia page for being an encyclopedia in this manner. It will be flooded with thousands of worldwide funding company daily. wikipedia is not a portfolio or directory of such company. Light2021 (talk) 13:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Salt as both the information, sources and history match with advertising and that alone, the fact this was speedy deleted once before and then restarted with this current article, I honestly believe we need to salt lest we have another attempt of advertising. The history particularly shows the obvious several accounts used to advertise and then change them to show "there were multiple people here" when in fact it's all PR advertising, something we take seriously and will not accept at any costs. SwisterTwister talk 20:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No significant coverage that I could find. Fails WP:GNG. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- product brochure in the form of a Wikipedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:14, 30 October 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 WWE Fastlane. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fastlane (2017) (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 - but the issue still exists. The event far in the future with no indication of notability. Similar situation to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Rumble (2017) Peter Rehse (talk) 11:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to WWE Fastlane. Sources aren't even considered reliable per WP:PW/RS. WP:TOOSOON, a similar discussion was had at WP:Articles for deletion/Royal Rumble (2017). JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to WWE Fastlane. Obviously fails GNG.LM2000 (talk) 18:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I would suggesting keeping it as a redirect until there is some build for the event, presumably after the Royal Rumble.LM2000 (talk) 02:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to WWE Fastlane per reasons already discussed above. Aoba47 (talk) 17:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to WWE Fastlane for now. Per above. Nickag989^talk 18:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to WWE Fastlane for now. Per above. Donnowin1 (talk) 04:53, 28 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Kadhem al-Rawi (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)

Per request from OTRS 2016092810006075 motivated by a belief that the allegation of association with an organization associated with terrorism creates a potential safety issue for the subject and family S Philbrick(Talk) 11:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete article that lacks sources to establish claims. Especially these types of claims should not be left intact on a living person when we lack sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. An allegation of association with a terrorist organization is not, in and of itself, a basis for a standalone WP:BLP — but that's really the only notability claim being made here at all. We have a rule on here that we have to be especially vigilant about information that could be libellous if proven false — and if you took every sentence out of the article that's fundamentally about tying him to the Muslim Brotherhood, you'd literally have nothing left except "this is a person who exists, the end". Bearcat (talk) 15:19, 26 October 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 Decepticon. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nemesis (Transformers) (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 fails to establish notability. Keep votes in previous AfDs come down to WP:ITSIMPORTANT. TTN (talk) 11:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. Merge any content if needed. Avoid redlink bait to recreate the article again, preserves history if ever needed. Montanabw^(talk) 20:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to... Decepticon, I guess? Definitely redirect somewhere, as there's no way this passes the WP:GNG. Even if we accept the article's four references as reliable sources (and I don't think we should), they wouldn't support an article of this length. This is better suited to a Transformers fan wiki. A Train^talk 14:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Decepticon per A Train. Aoba47 (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Transformers spacecraft, where it is already mentioned. Redirecting to Decepticon would be OK, but the list is more specific and it would be easier to achieve due weight. --Mark viking (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Clare Boothe Luce. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Clare Brokaw (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)

certainly a tragic death, but nothing indicates notability in her lifetime, if anything the notable bits attach to her mother, but notability is not inherited Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would support the calls to Merge to Clare Boothe Luce--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would say merge with her mother's page and redirect there. Her claim to significance is that her death affected her mother deeply and one result was the building of Saint Ann's Chapel in Palo Alto which was the center of the Stanford University Catholic community from its building until around 1970 when Stanford religious groups were allowed to hold services on campus (before then the only religious services had to be non-denominational in the Stanford Memorial Church); the chapel was eventually sold and is now a church for an Anglican splinter group. --Erp (talk) 02:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Clare Boothe Luce The cited content is interesting but it's not enough for general notability. A sentence or two could be merged into the article about the subject's mother. This should not standalone. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as above. Blythwood (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 12:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or redirect somewhere. The whole content of the article strikes me as utterly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:57, 30 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:MUSICBIO and WP:BLP1E. The only source I could find was the one about her copyright suit. There is no real coverage of her music career and no evidence any of her works charted. Jbh^Talk 11:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note there is an associated article Rhonda Dimmie discography. Jbh^Talk 11:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 11:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails the criteria at WP:MUSIC. Karst (talk) 11:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO, only claim to notability is a copyright lawsuit and therefor falls under WP:BLP1E. Discography article is clearly a fail of WP:NALBUM.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Lawsuit received minor coverage, and then only because it involved a celebrity. Independent notability is not established. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65B8:F59A:5E97:E329 (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; Sigh, another case of publicists out of control. Initially CSDd, IP removed tag; fails any notability criteria. Simply no sourcing out there. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:29, 31 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Freddie Eldrett (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 actor who seems to have been mainly an extra. Unsourced and unreferenced. Even his IMDB article shows no acting career.Jack1956 (talk) 09:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I don't think a lot of people have even heard of this guy. The source given has nothing. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 09:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I checked his IMDB page and his movie career was at best, short and unremarkable.Domdeparis (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:52, 24 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Ware (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)

No sources and could not find any when doing a Google search. Andise1 (talk) 07:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not a notable self-release. Karst (talk) 10:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, just a track list, unlikely to be expanded. Eventual informations could be included in Taylor Ware. Given the eponymy, a redirect appears to be useless. Cavarrone 10:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I see no likelihood of obtaining consensus here. DGG ( talk ) 09:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs which have spent the most weeks on the UK Singles Chart (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 may live to regret this given how useful I found this article for compiling my website. However, I can't find any source which contains this information; only the individual artist totals. This leads me to believe this is original research. Launchballer 21:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Comment: the various British Hit Singles books published by Guinness World Records up to 2006 contained these lists, updated with each edition. However, a decade has now passed since the last of these books was published, and the nature of this being a dynamic list means it's a nightmare to keep updated. Coupled with this is the fact that the advent of streaming has meant that songs generally spend far longer in the charts than they used to, and furthermore the OCC has since redefined the old chart positions from 76 to 100 as now qualifying as actual chart positions, when between 1978 and 1994 the BMRB and Gallup who used to compile the charts stated quite clearly at the time that these positions were indicative only and did not represent actual chart positions. So although sources do exist, they're not up to date and the goalposts have since been moved. Richard3120 (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional comment: Launchballer, I'm not sure what you mean by not finding any source, only the artist totals – if you click on the reference for each song, it takes you to the artist page on the OCC website, and if you then scroll down the list of singles by that artist to find the relevant single, it displays the number of weeks on chart. So they are all there on the OCC page, but like I said, it requires someone to update this on a weekly basis. Richard3120 (talk) 22:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's what I meant by artist totals.--Launchballer 22:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it also gives the individual total weeks on chart for each single by that artist as well – hence the references in the article to the artist's page on the OCC website. Richard3120 (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Not sure what grounds there are for deletion. It does take regular updating, as do all the chart related pages (artists who only had number 2s, number one singles on the wax cylinder chart etc.), but the songs' week by week records are permanently available on OCC and so, even if one user goes in once a year and updates it (as long as the 'as of date' messages are present), it is perfectly possible. For a while I updated all the sections each week, but lately have concentrated on the 70+ weeks in top 100 as a minimum due to life. The increased torpidity of the charts since streaming means I'd be happy to see adjustments to our cut-offs (we raised 40 weeks to 50 initially, but if consensus is to go for 60 or 70 - fine) I think the different sections (top 40, top 75, top 100) are relevant, as each has at some point defined 'The Chart' and (as Richard3120 says above, the lower positions have been redefined). Again, these are all explicitly stated in the OCC stats along with weeks at number 1, top 10 and top 20 - which I have summarised in the lede, to avoid too many tables. Unlike sales figures, which are notoriously difficult to pin down, chart figures are published every week and largely agreed on by all sources, at least for the last few decades. Btljs (talk) 07:12, 23 October 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. As some commenters have pointed out, the claims to have represented (or even been involved in representing) Montenegro at the ESC hinge on one source, which merely repeats comments from the subject's Instagram account. As Optatakeover points out, there are no reliable third-party sources here at all. Black Kite (talk) 19:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vasilije Ojdanić (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 individual from Montenegro. Article contains many unsubstantiated claims of success as a singer. Sources other than the individual's official website are trivial claims of attempts to enter songs for the Eurovision Song Contest. Fails WP:MUSBIO. Pickette (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep - surely the article needs work. adding of sources etc. but that is irrelevant to notability. per WP:GNG. has entered the national selection for Eurovision. Has obviously released plenty of music singles. There is a difference between a bad shape article and notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a nomination because the bad shape of the article. There are no independent sources to verify this singer's claims of success or even notability as a performer. Claiming to have sent a song to a Eurovision national final does not make a singer notable. I could do the same; it wouldn't warrant a Wikipedia article about myself. And some of those claims can't even be verified as factual because Montenegro never held an open call for songs in 2016. This article fails WP:GNG. Pickette (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Pickette's reason. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 05:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not a reasoning for deletion. BabbaQ (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, let me give a reason: "This isn't a nomination because the bad shape of the article. There are no independent sources to verify this singer's claims of success or even notability as a performer. Claiming to have sent a song to a Eurovision national final does not make a singer notable. I could do the same; it wouldn't warrant a Wikipedia article about myself. And some of those claims can't even be verified as factual because Montenegro never held an open call for songs in 2016. This article fails WP:GNG." - Pickette Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 04:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:GNG [6] [7] (In spanish) [8]JohnTombs48 (talk) 06:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great additional sources that provides further notability. BabbaQ (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Spanish article you provided actually points out that his claim to be representing a country at the Eurovision Song Contest is a hoax. As are most if not all of the claims in this Wikipedia article. Pickette (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are primary sources of sites which are closely-associated with the Eurovision. Of course it's a given Eurovision-associated sites would talk about the people who do take part in the Eurovision. But is there any source out there which is not associated with the Eurovision, is not a primary source, is a third-party, neutral source, which talks about the person, his actual achievements and his fame/cult following/fan following/notability, as described at WP:NMUSICIAN??????? Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 12:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per WP:MUSBIO and WP:HOAX. This guy has been trying to enter Eurovision for the past few years and has been the subject of multiple hoax announcements that, unfortunately, the fan press sometimes picks up on. The sources given by JohnTombs48 all say that Ojdanić lied about his participation. Here's a wiwibloggs article that describes the hoax: [9].

BabbaQ's reason to keep, saying that the subject has released multiple singles is not backed up by WP:MUSBIO as his singles did not chart, nor were they released by a major record label. Anybody can release a song and call it a single.

Not deleting this article would only lend credence to the subject's hoax and weaken the credibility of WikiProject Eurovision. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 22:16, 31 October 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 DGG ( talk ) 09:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable company. Nothing significant but another company. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a Startup directory. Definitely getting funded by VC, and building Wikipedia page for their publicity, releasing articles on major media as paid or influenced. Light2021 (talk) 10:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:PROMO; an advertorial on an unremarkable e-commerce company. The size of the investment suggests that it's a minor player in its space. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have added a link above to the 2013 no-consensus AfD. AllyD (talk) 07:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: My own view in the 2013 AfD was that all that was available was coverage on the propositional opportunity on which the company had been founded and obtained start-up funding. It should be noted though that others were strongly of another view. Reviewing the coverage of this firm, I have been surprised to see so little since that initial start-up coverage; searches using the tailored Indian search are finding little other than passing mention relative to Holisol, who provide the back-end logistics for this and other e-comm firms [10]. Now as in 2013, I fail to see the in-depth critical discussion needed to demonstrate encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 07:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fanlala (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)

created for high degree of promotions, nothing else! nothing is here Light2021 (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom - I'm finding a tiny amount of passing mention coverage of Fanlala and its parent and previous name, IMbee, an FTC press release that didn't appear to get coverage and an RSes about the owner's past. But nothing that swings it for me - David Gerard (talk) 10:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and I wish I had in fact commented sooner so we could've deleted it faster, given this is a clear advertisement, only listing the information best suited for advertising the company itself, and it's a fact considering this has literally not changed since said started advertisement therefore suggesting no one apparently cares at all for making an actual convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The sources are pretty weak. The coverage in reliable sources is limited to brief mentions with no depth such as [11], [12] and [13]. I don't see enough to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH at this time. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 15:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Los Reyes de la Pichaera (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 references or evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 21:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm not sure anything related to this band, including the five albums that have articles and the article on the band itself, is notable – none of it is referenced beyond their social media presence. Richard3120 (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and close this Afd per WP:SOFTDELETE. It won't be sensible to have such unreferenced articles survive Afds because of No consensus, when no sources are available any way. Lourdes 07:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - No sources whatsoever. Karst (talk) 10:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Not finding any coverage in reliable sources, and does not appear to meet any of the criteria at WP:NALBUMS. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:25, 24 October 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 22:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Completely unnotable album. Page was created by subject related to the article. Another editor had evidence that this article and the related articles were created by a paid service. Sn00per (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for similar reasons. These are all just absolute junk and promotional. I think the artist himself is notable enough, but none of these secondary pages are needed:

Albums:

• Afterplay (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Expect a Miracle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Shortcuts - redirects that were articles that should have also been deleted.

• Tomorrow's Daydream Solo Piano Songbook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Butterfly Rapture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Pools of Light Solo Piano Songbook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Brian Kelly (composer & pianist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Pools of Light (Brian Kelly album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Afterplay (Brian Kelly album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Expect A Miracle (Brian Kelly album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Categories:

• Category:Brian Kelly (composer) albums
• Category:Brian Kelly (composer) compilation albums - seriously?

Template:

• Template:Brian Kelly (composer)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "Another editor had evidence" is not evidence, but anecdote. @Sn00per: Please provide the evidence, or a link to it, or strike that claim. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Ask User:Stevebliss1933 who made that claim on the Brian Kelly page. Sn00per (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I notified Steve on his talk page. Sn00per (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all of it. Clearly promotional. 12.1.93.35 (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - While the artist himself appears to be notable, I don't see reason to think that these releases are. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:36, 26 October 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 22:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ismail Salami (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)

Currently fails WP:GNG WP:BIO. May meet WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR (author and translator can be verified). (Was having difficulty restoring an older version which has weak sourcing, and restore triggered the edit filter). Quick search didn't find coverage in RS. That leaves a BLP failing WP:V where the birth year has changed 1968 -> 1970 -> 1968 and can't easily be verified. WP:PERMASTUB Widefox; talk 11:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: After adding the publications (translation from .de) WP:AUTHOR seems the closest. Widefox; talk 11:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• An assistant professor is very unlikely to pass WP:PROF, but I haven't checked other possible routes to notability. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Publication of a letter and response to it in New York Review of Books [14] implies some degree of notability. He's also heavily quoted here. I'm leaning toward keep here, in part because he's published _so_ many articles (many of which are nutty IMO, but that's another issue). But there isn't a lot that contributes to WP:N. Hobit (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The guy's writings appear to be pretty rabidly anti-semetic and if this is kept, we should be sure the article indicates that a bit more strongly than it does now. Hobit (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment article can be improvedWorldlinguistic (talk) 09:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't read Persian, but maybe someone who can could look for sources under the Persian spelling of the name, found in the infobox of the Turkish Wikipedia article:

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

86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete at this time as no sources have been presented at this AfD to justify inclusion. As noted above, the subject's views are not fully reflected in the article, so I think it's best to delete rather than have a misleading article. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Salt considering the past 2 deletions alone, one in 2010 and the other 2013 which actually mean something, and the other thing is that he's literally not convincing for WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF. SwisterTwister talk 23:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this is a BLP with hardly any reliable secondary sources to verify the information. I am not opposed to a recreation of this article should reliable sources be found. But at this moment, I see a lot of articles by him but nothing about him. I am using the rationale at WP:WHYN here that we require reliable sources so that we are able to write an NPOV article about the subject. At the moment the sources (such as the primary source from Anti Defamation League alleging anti-semitism) do not allow us to do that. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:54, 30 October 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. Cavarrone 07:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

D/C (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

My specific PROD removed one day before its set time for deletion, with the lone basis of an existing Allmusic link, which of course is not convincing for notability alone; everything here is not at all substantial, both information and sources, and none is to be expected since he's only been active a year. SwisterTwister talk 00:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the allmusic link was not existing as I added it and it is a biography rather than just a listing which is more than most musicians get on allmusic, mainly just listings.It is early in the career of the act so this is borderline but he does seem notable. Regarding the prod removal I tend to leave it to the last minute in the hope that someone else will have deprodded it. Atlantic306 (talk) 01:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is still not actually showing us how, where and why the subject is convincingly notable for an article, yet despite also having listed all of my analyzed concerns above. SwisterTwister talk 01:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good start, but I'd like more. Surprised he couldn't get any chart action as yet - David Gerard (talk) 10:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. We have a short Allmusic bio, plus [15] (yes I know it's an interview, but also contains content written about him), [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. Not great in terms of depth, but probably covered widely enough to justify keeping. --Michig (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Simply having an Allmusic is still questionable for the needed substance and going into some of these, I notice they are not only questionable music blogs, but they also simply advertise him, such as the fact of his career plans and the last one apparently only being some "5 best new songs this week", hardly actual substance, especially considering how underwhelming the article currently is. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Which ones do you consider "questionable music blogs", and which ones "simply advertise him"? --Michig (talk) 06:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 22:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laura-Leigh (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, only one credible source. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 12:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this actress has had roles in several television and film productions. WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 12:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — Note: I created this article. Per WP:NACTOR, one of several criteria that each individually suffice to establish an actor's notability is "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." The movies The Ward (by noted director John Carpenter and with an estimated budget of $10 million, albeit a critical and box office failure) and We're the Millers (estimated $270 million worldwide gross) easily qualify as notable films; Gossip Girl, Law & Order, and Numb3rs easily qualify as notable television shows; finally, a stage performance of the play Boy's Life which was reviewed in the New York Times probably qualifies as a notable stage performance (and note that this actress was mentioned by name in that review). Thus the only remaining question is what constitutes a "significant role". Clearly, a "significant role" is not the same as a top-billing, starring, or headlining role, otherwise the written criteria would use wording to that effect. It should be sufficient if the character has a name which gets mentioned by the other characters and the character has speaking lines in more than one scene and has multiple consecutive lines of dialog including direct interaction and dialog with the top-billed star of the film. That is the case with both of the above-mentioned films. I have not viewed the one-time guest appearances in the episodes of the TV series mentioned above, but in two of them the character is credited in IMDb with a first name and a last name (the third is merely credited as "Barista"), which likely indicates multiple speaking lines and actually playing a part in the unfolding of the plot. Finally, a role in a stage play is probably sufficiently "significant" if a New York Times review devotes one entire sentence solely to that character. The proposer has only provided a five-word boilerplate justification, and it is inaccurate at that, since IMDb and the New York Times already constitute two credible sources, and a small-town newspaper is a third credible source, at least for biographical details of a person from that town. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 05:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@P.T. Aufrette: while NYT is a credible source, IMDb is merely a listing. See WP:N and WP:IRS. Simply appearing in notable shows does not necessarily make an actor notable on their own. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 23:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to imply that merely being listed in IMDb is enough to make an actor notable, only that it is a credible source as to which movies and TV shows an actor has appeared in. Regarding notability for actors, as I mentioned above, if there are multiple appearances in notable movies and TV shows then per the WP:NACTOR criteria it all hinges on what constitutes a "significant role". In connection with We're the Millers, I suggested some possible indicators that a minor role is not insignificant (e.g., a character whose name is introduced and has speaking lines in more than one scene, and has multiple consecutive lines of dialog in interaction with a main character), and you did not address that point. And the role in The Ward, specifically, was actually a co-starring role in an ensemble cast, and her name is fourth-billed in the opening credits: Amber Heard, Mamie Gummer, Danielle Panabaker, Laura-Leigh, Lyndsy Fonseca, Mika Boorem, and Jared Harris, in that order (you can find some ripped version of the movie on YouTube if you need to verify this, for instance here). There was also a co-starring role (sixth-billed in opening credits) in the direct-to-video parody movie Tooken and a role in the Jennifer Love Hewitt TV series The Client List (recurring character in season 1, series regular in season 2), and these productions meet the Wikipedia general notability guideline. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 09:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, borderline but has received some decent coverage and has several significant roles (notably a leading role in Carpenter's The Ward and as a regular in The Client List) enough to pass NACTOR. Cavarrone 10:46, 1 November 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apoorva Shah (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 and non notable. Trivial over-specific awards, insufficient to justify claim of "a pioneer" The sources are either direct or barely disguised press releases/ DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

promotional article and not notable Mascarponette (talk) 09:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Most search results are for a different Apoorva Shah. The Maharashtra Vaibhav Award might be significant but subject lacks notability. Meatsgains (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable doctor. Article only exists to promote the subject. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 22:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Stock (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)

Does not appear to meet WP:POLITICIAN, and there is nothing listed about her that makes her notable enough to have her own article. What is on her article seems impressive, but the article appears more like a campaign biography rather than something more substantial. Does not meet notability guidelines. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. 1990'sguy (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. 1990'sguy (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Political candidate not notable for career as a lawyer. Meatsgains (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral – The timing of this article's creation was indeed quite suspicious, but campaign advertising for topics lacking enduring notability has been an unfortunate way of life on Wikipedia for years. That won't change until people get their heads screwed on straight about what's notable versus what's today's or yesterday's trending topics and quit relying on corporate media to dictate to them what to write about on here. Going back to the last election for this same U.S. Senate seat, Scott McAdams had some pretty blatant COI issues. Moreover, I've seen evidence of the belief that McAdams was highly notable six years ago but is non-notable today. I don't believe whatsoever that this is the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. The reason I say "neutral" boils down to this story. To summarize, much of the Alaska Democratic Party establishment is supporting Stock over their own nominee, Ray Metcalfe. Evidence of that was abundant during the recently-concluded Alaska Federation of Natives convention. Perhaps this is the opposite of WP:TOOSOON, namely that this AFD is coming along too soon. Given that the election is two weeks away, if Stock's money and party support results in a respectable showing at the polls, it could be necessary to revisit a deleted article. Since the article has been around this long, there is no real harm in waiting until after the election. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Stock is notable as a recipient of a MacArthur Fellowship, a major award that includes a $625,000 prize. We already have biographies of a large majority of MacArthur Fellows. Accordingly, she meets WP:ANYBIO which says that a person is notable if "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. The person is notable as a recipient of MacArthur Fellowship, and hence meets WP:ANYBIO: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times".--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]