Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 28: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Moxhay (talk | contribs)
164 edits
Line 12: Line 12:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cantons of the Corse-du-Sud department}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sampung Gamol}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sampung Gamol}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people from Kings County, New Brunswick}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people from Kings County, New Brunswick}}

Revision as of 21:40, 28 October 2016

< 27 October 29 October >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 07:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cantons of the Corse-du-Sud department

Cantons of the Corse-du-Sud department (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The list is composed entirely of redlinks. I do not think that this is notable. Moxhay (Talk * Contribs) 21:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. The French equivalent is a big article with lots of bluelinks, and several good-looking references. A topic and its subtopics can still be notable even if no-one has yet written articles in a foreign language (in this case, English). Narky Blert (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes WP:LISTN, and redlinks are not a reason to delete: Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group ... Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable. These seem to be equivalent to state-level voting districts in the United States, which are notable (especially as a set), per WP:GEOLAND. Not sure why this one was picked out for deletion, given that there are 98 other nearly identical list articles (linked at List of cantons of France). Antepenultimate (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems to meet notability for lists. Also, maybe some of these redlinks should be turned into bluelinks. White Arabian Filly Neigh 19:44, 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. MBisanz talk 01:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sampung Gamol

Sampung Gamol (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)

Film hasn't come out yet, so maybe it's WP:TOOSOON? Adam9007 (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:21, 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 speedy keep. Merging and redirecting may be performed through normal editing and discussion; there is no role for AFD to perform here. See WP:ATD, WP:SK#1. postdlf (talk) 22:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of people from Kings County, New Brunswick

List of people from Kings County, New Brunswick (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 have merged this with the main article because this article is just a stub and the main Kings County page is short. Feel free to remove the copied info from the Kings county page while this discussion is going on. Moxhay (Talk * Contribs) 21:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:32, 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 no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 12:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kuapay

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

Only for promotions. no encyclopedia notability is here. References are highly questionable. Enterpreneur, Mashable, Tech crunch can write about a startup who is no where notable or even you can become contributor to write about yourself. Light2021 (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as although this may not be damningly explosively and continuously blatant as others, the content and sources themselves explain it alone and show it's simply advertising, complete with the sheer specifics about it, so although this is a different case than others, it still boils to something unsubstantial and unconvincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
if you say so, why keep then? :) you can read if you like: Wikipedia:Notability means impact or Wikipedia:No one really cares . Light2021 (talk) 01:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Light2021:, I believe if you took the time to look, @Tedder: is an experienced administrator who would already bee aware of the "essays" you pointed out. Also, I am not sure if someone already has been essays have little weight over policies and guidelines. This bull in a china shop conduct with your AfD nominations and comments is starting to border on WP:DISRUPTPOINT.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
no question on the contributors. But seems like you are coming up with arguments not on topic but on my personal AfD. As you did on my Talk page or probably going on every discussions. sometimes we need to read something, I am not doubting, whether the senior editor has knowledge or not, in same case as you cite policies or guidelines, it does not mean no one read them. You are just trying to make a point as per wikipedia guidelines or putting the perspective. I did not understand the need for your comment there. as if you never cite GNC or other policies on every discussions. Light2021 (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Like this one https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/220732, this magazine is no different than recently deleted The Next Web, Yourstory and blocked Red Herring Awards. This magazine has no credible Journalistic approach. and article can be written by any kind of writer from PR agents to company officials themselves. Highly Questionable reference on notability. On the second though what we get " A Profile" written on Wikipedia". What are we making for such companies. A Directory? Doubtful anyone knows beyond a particular geography oe even their own industry. Non-notable and not adds any value to Encyclopedia material. Need to do assessment on Wikipedia Notability impact! And if we consider that article by any reason, it is already there. Why you need to make Wikipedia article based on interview conducted by magazine? We need substantial coverage and depth. It is missing here. This is not a News Distribution Channel. Light2021 (talk) 14:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Examining those articles still only finds what the company has either published, republished or influenced for their own advertising and advertising materials, especially TechCrunch which has noticeably not been taken seriously here at AfD because of the sheer willingness of republishing a company's own advertising. Because there's advertising concerns, that's not something we compromise with nor should we consider. SwisterTwister talk 07:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- per WP:TOOSOON, as a page an unremarkable business with no indications of notability or significance just yet. Sources are weak and do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH, as they mostly relate to launch publicity, as in "Mobile Payments Startup Kuapay Grabs $4 Million Investment, Readies Global Expansion". This is a typical startup blurb focused on company aspirations and self-promotion. Let's wait until it achieves its planned global expansion and then create an encyclopedia article. Otherwise, this is a WP:NOTNEWS situation. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --- WP:TOOSOON applies here; at present, allowing this page to exist would amount to nothing more than WP serving as Kuapay's PR rep. Mystic Technocrat (talk) 14:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  There are page after page of articles in Google and Google news, many of them in foreign languages.  Yes, there is an unexplained reduction of coverage in recent years, but not enough to be a clear issue.  Kuapay is starting to appear in Google books.  Wikipedia notability is thus established.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's a 4:3 of votes here for Delete, but I'll comment to simply state "pages and pages of articles" for sources is not convincing, since the analysis above, as it is has shown all available links to be advertising, including either paid or self-republished by the company itself, therefore we cannot automatically confide in sources without actually analyzing them as I have myself above. Therefore, the Keep votes have then not substantiated themselves after said analysis or to at least acknowledge the concerns.

Also "unexplained less coverage in years, but not enough to be an issue" is itself showing how the company itself is not even significant, therefore it explains the fact they simply paid and republished for news attention themselves, hence not independent or convincing. We should not compromise with advertisements simply because another publication offered to publish their own advertising, because it would damn us from being better and different from advertising-hosting websites. To summarize, WP:SPAM and WP:NOT apply here, so any triviality such as WP:GNG be damned, since it means nothing against advertising. SwisterTwister talk 02:30, 21 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 speedy keep. / Withdrawn - Sources have been provided which are excellent so withdrawing, Thanks, (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 20:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revival FM

Revival FM (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 radio station, Google brings up mentions but nothing substantial, Fails GNG –Davey2010Talk 20:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The station is notable - a Google search brings up links to the station found on internetradiouk.com - http://www.internetradiouk.com/revival-cumbernauld/ & Tune in radio - http://tunein.com/radio/Revival-FM-1008-s92735/ with a news article to be found at Cumbernauld News - http://www.cumbernauld-news.co.uk/news/revamp-for-revival-fm-radio-1-3590278 . Furthermore the station is noted as being Scotland's first community Christian radio station, is listed by the Scottish Community Broadcasting Network (SCBN) - http://www.scbn.info and has since been granted extensions to its licence from the UK broadcasting regulatory body OFCOM - the latest being an exension through to 2021 - details here - http://static.ofcom.org.uk/enwiki/static/radiolicensing/html/radio-stations/community/cr000020ba2revivalfm.htm

The station has significant representation in west central Scotland (and further afield) on air, online and at concerts and events - http://www.revival.fm/events/

Reproz10 (talk) 13:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm assuming you work for the station ?, Anyway none of those are reliable sources in any shape or form, The station can't have that much of a "significant representation in west central Scotland" as there's nothing to prove this, The station isn't notable pure and simple. –Davey2010Talk 14:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • They may be reliable for some purposes, but a local newspaper from the town where the station is based isn't much of an indication of significance and the others appear to be directory entries or similar. Some coverage exists (The Scotsman, 29 April 2007 is all I could find specifically about Revival FM, Cross Rhythms, 15 May 2013 is about a festival co-ordinated by the station) but I'm not sure whether this is notable or not - it could be that one more source, that I haven't been able to find, is enough to meet the guidelines, or it could be that the coverage that exists isn't enough. Peter James (talk) 20:20, 14 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. MER-C 12:19, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neomobile

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

Only Well written by professionals for promotional alone. no encyclopedia notability is here Light2021 (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:24, 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 delete. MER-C 12:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MHITS

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

Only purpose is to create for blatant promotions. I must say, that is professional work writing such misleading promotional article. Light2021 (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as the blatantly obvious history of advertising-only account explain enough especially since all of their contributions not only focused with this one article, but it of course advertised the company therefore, now considering the sheerness of advertising information and sources, there's literally nothing here guaranteed of advertising thus delete. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:24, 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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Molpay

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

Article is created to promote itself. questionable coverage and references. nothing like an encyclopedic notable. Article is just detail press comprise into an short article. Even added their booklet. Light2021 (talk) 19:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as this was somehow "reviewed and accepted" last year and tagged but it should've in fact been nominated for deletion as a skillfully informed user aware of advertising would, because that's especially what all of this is and there's nothing to suggest anything otherwise, since the information and sources are still in fact advertising overall
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:54, 4 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) 12:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Kowatsch

Antonio Kowatsch (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)

Biography of a Slovak composer and game developer. He's quite active online so he gets Ghits for his accounts on Twitter, Quora, Facebook, Stack Exchange and so on but there's no independent coverage of him in reliable sources. None of the nine references provided are the kind that we can use. The article says he's a game developer but never gives a company he's worked for or a game he's helped to develop. The article also claims that he's been read 2 million times but the reference given is his Quora account which lists about a thousand posts but provides no info about the number of readers. Pichpich (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: purely promotional piece which fails WP:GNG and notability in all areas the subject claims to be active in. He is an independent game developer; no evidence that his games have been picked up by the wider community. None of his academic papers appear to have published in a peer-reviewed journal. At least one of his two albums is self-published, and it seems likely that the other one is as well, because I can't find any online presence of Illumidyne Records or of any other record appearing on this label. Richard3120 (talk) 17:09, 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. Joyous! | Talk 04:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby Receptionists

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

Still a blatant advertisement since my extensive and specific PROD here since the listed sources are all simply publishing PR or republishing it, take the Forbes for example, it is literally from a "special contributor" who is a apparently some random journalist, likely hired or enticed by the company to publish their own advertising; the Fortune itself is simply part of a list of new minor companies to work with, and the others are equally blatant PR; my own searches had in fact found PR, and that's not surprising since that's exactly what both the article contents and history show in that this has literally not changed since the first user's contributions, Mxheil (which seems to have been a clever advertising-only account and I would even speculate it was a paid advertising account, the fact it's one major contribution was this one advertisement). Something else to note about this article is not only the blatancy of using PR and advertising puff here, but once again, my repeated searches are still only finding local PR advertising and PR words published or republished by the businesspeople or company themselves.

We never and never shall make compromises with such advertising blatancy wherever the information may be published, because one thing is certain, and that's that the information, even in the major news, are simply PR and republished PR, including by damningly blatant "special contributor". SwisterTwister talk 18:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 07:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. The article does not have a promotional tone. North America1000 15:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only good reference is the article in Fortune. There's a reason why WP:GNG specifies several references, in order to avoid making articles on the basis of a single magazine's or newspaper's humnb interest account. That just shows that an editor once decided to devote an article, not that there is any kind of general interest in the company. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there supposed to be apparent substance there? All the first 10 pages found were published-republished PR which then also included copypaste company quotes and its company activities along with quoted interviews with its businesspeople repeating said company activities, when there's literally nothing but that (from both local PR publications but also national ones), it shows there's literally nothing else better. This also shows since the entire article apparently was only able to the best that could also be found: Published-republished company PR. When we start compromising and allowing such blatant advertising and republished company-quotes, we're damned as a suitable encyclopedia.
Also, about these sources above, the Delete votes have analyzed and listed them all as simply republished company adverisements, therefore literally republished and offering the same link that consists of them, is not showing any different at all, simply actually emphasizes there is in fact nothing else but what the company has published about themselves and had republished. I'll go as far to even quote some of what's in that link above: "The company wants its clients to know it's a welcoming workplace and offers its clients the best services", "The company said today", "The company's businesspeople", "The company's finances are", "My company Ruby Receptions", "Today, the businesspeople from Ruby Receptions said", "Ruby Receptionist's services include", "Ruby Receptionists is good for its clients", "Ruby Receptionists's new offices today", "Ruby Receptionists offers its employees beneficial pay", "Ruby Receptionists announces here today", "Ruby Receptionists' employees include", "Ruby Receptionists' CEO says", "Ruby Receptionists has a perky office vibe and happy workforce,, etc. None of that was actual journalism, instead costumed advertising acting as "News". When all those pages have this, it shows there's no genuine news there, since it's everything company-published. SwisterTwister talk 03:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't feel there is sufficient in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. It is one of many thousands of small businesses and doesn't cross the notability threshold. MB 04:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I also want to note that the author user themselves is suggested to be a likely paid advertising user the fact they only ever involved themselves with these subjects, and heavily focusing with PR-like information, therefore suggesting only one thing: A PR agent or otherwise involved person with such activities. Because of these concerns, the Delete votes have substantiated themselves with clear statements about this, hence WP:GNG means nothing if WP:SPAM and WP:NOT then apply, which are in fact policy. SwisterTwister talk 05:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are you trying to say? What author user (and what does that mean) somehow has a COI here? A look at the person who started the article has infrequent edits and an eclectic mix of articles based on the most 50 edits. Further, even if someone had a COI, should we still discount that? Should we discount your arguments because you seem to have it out for business articles (aka a deletionist)? When you go into a discussion looking for reasons to delete, you will find your reasons to delete. If you go in looking for reasons to keep, you will find your reasons. If you go in with an open mind and without baggage, you will find reasons to delete sometimes and reasons to keep other times. Aboutmovies (talk) 03:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • sources while the articles in the news google search I linked to above do include multitudinous choices by the Portland Business Journal to mention/link to press releases [2], [3], sources also include a local prize covered in The Oregonian [4]; a RS Corvallis Gazette-Times article with details on the company's size [5]; what appears to be reported article by a paid, staff journalist in Business Insider[6]; that profile in Fortune (magazine) [7]; and also inclusion in a Fortune (magazine) list of 50 Best Small and Medium-Size Companies to Work For (with brief profile); a similar listing at NBCChicago [8]; in addition to coverage in essays by Forbes "contributors," including [9], [10]. Lots of photos in these and other articles; the company's unusual office culture seems to attract coverage... and prizes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Found another Oregonian article by staff writer specifically about Ruby Receptionists. Article is dated 11 Aug 2013. There are also several other Oregonian articles that mention the business … and could provide facts for use in Wiki-article. In my opinion, articles on businesses are underrepresented in Wikipedia’s body of work mainly because basic facts can easily be attributed PR. However, if article sticks to the facts and has reasonable independent sources like the Oregonian (which is largest/oldest newspaper Oregon) they should be kept.--Orygun (talk) 09:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON; local coverage in the Oregonian is not convincing as it does not meet WP:AUD. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:51, 19 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. Joyous! | Talk 15:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poovaipalayam

Poovaipalayam (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)

Poovaipalayam is a village near Vedasandur in Tamil Nadu (source). It is so small that it does not figure in the 2001 census; the demographics section is a remnant of the copy/paste edit that created this article. There are many villages in the state, and I don't believe this one is notable enough. The source I listed above is one of only three I could find (see here); even then, the village is only briefly mentioned among many others. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 18:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are many villages all over the world, and we keep articles on them if they can be shown to exist even if they have a much smaller population than 700. What is so special about Tamil Nadu that we should treat villages there any differently? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the 700 figure appears to be unsourced, originating in the statement "population: approx. 700 in 2009" by the creator of the article. Also, I suggest you read WP:GNG and other parts of that guideline. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 21:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Narky Blert: Poovaipalayam does not appear to be legally recognised. I searched for it in the 2011 census list of villages, but the village did not come up. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 01:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 07:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:31, 17 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mai Hoshikawa

Mai Hoshikawa (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 don't find any notable lead roles in notable productions. Dokyusei 2 and Kakyusei are video games but it's not like she leads the franchise in those. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:55, 5 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. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sol H. Weiss

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

WP:BIO notability not met. Some of his cases were notable but notability is not inherited. The article bears signs of puffery (e.g. questionable awards from nn publications and their press releases) and was created by a now blocked editor. There are no substantial biographical details provided such as year/place of birth. Many of the sources are primary court records and have no bearing on subject's notability. The article's creator was blocked for advertising; see DGG's comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry E. Coben for another of his nn attorney bio creations which had very similar problems with article formulation. Brianhe (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Brianhe (talk) 07:08, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Brianhe (talk) 18:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:41, 14 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--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 17:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC). Would have qualified for speedy deletion.[reply]

Dharmendra Singh (politician)

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

Candidate not yet notable per WP:POLITICIAN: not yet been elected to office. Can't find significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested without comment by anonymous editor. Wikishovel (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates for political office, per WP:NPOL — if you cannot make and reliably source credible evidence that he already passed a Wikipedia inclusion criterion for some other reason before becoming a candidate, then he does not become notable enough for a Wikipedia article until he wins the election. Bearcat (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 4 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. Sam Walton (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vegan Gains

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Most of the coverage is either not from reliable sources. The rest is trivial coverage of one particular incident which was uploaded to Burgess' YouTube channel (WP:BLP1E). There are no sources given which interview him in an in-depth way. shoy (reactions) 16:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:26, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 11:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pride of the Dales

Pride of the Dales (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 bus company, Google brings up mentions but nothing substantial, Fails GNG –Davey2010Talk 16:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well that's a complete lie because I've had tons of these deleted and so have other editors...., If we use your logic not one article on this place would ever be deleted ?, bus articles (like any other article) are judged on their notability ... not on whether "it makes up an encyclopedia". –Davey2010Talk 03:33, 2 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 redirect to Nosler. And merge whatever may be considered appropriate from history.  Sandstein  13:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

.33 Nosler

.33 Nosler (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)

Methinks we should merge and redirect to Nosler. See WP:PRODUCT, in particular the "explosive space modulator" example. TigraanClick here to contact me 15:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that I value consistency. This is not an OSE issue as nobody wants to delete the content of those 500+ articles. (And by the way, an AfD in the present case is odd since you're not advocating for the deletion of the article.) Pichpich (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Pipchpich It is important to keep this article separate from the Company page as it needs to be linked to in articles such as List of rifle cartridges and Table of handgun and rifle cartridges Each cartridge provides unique information to a particular user, based on what type of Chamberings and Reloading that is performed.Jfarrester
  • Keep I totally concur with Pichpich on this. There are plenty of pages on wildcat rounds, many of which aren't super-notable, but I think that individual articles are useful so that the differences between the cartridges and their derivatives can be explained in greater detail. As long as there is a good amount of verifiable information regarding a round, I think it merits an individual page. R. A. Simmons Talk 19:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]
  • Neutral I see the points on both sides. It seems that there may not be enough reliable mention of the caliber for it to be a standalone article, but I'm not really an expert on these things. I'll leave it up to those with more investment, I suppose. R. A. Simmons Talk 15:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consistency should exist over the whole of Wikipedia, not just in a tiny niche area. We don't have articles on small variations of manufactured items in other areas, so why should we do so for pistol and rifle cartridges? I've had a look at a random selection of articles in the category linked above and they all seem to be just as unnotable as this subject, so the real doubt is about why those other articles should exist rather than why this one shouldn't. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the "keeps" above appear to be a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, also WP:ITSUSEFUL doesn't cut it, this does not meet WP:GNG, a gsearch does not bring up useable sources, just company/blog/PR pages may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, ok to redirect until/if it becomes notable. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  17:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:56, 14 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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:47, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Trenton, Georgia

Flag of Trenton, Georgia (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)

Proposing to delete as WP:REDUNDANTFORK and merge into Trenton, Georgia. Dare I say, this article may be a WP:POVFORK intending to place undue weight on this local flag. Brianga (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. As I agree with the original proposal to merge, the flag seems to be more notable that the town itself --Truther2012 (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:15, 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 no consensus. Low participation (non-admin closure) Nordic Nightfury 10:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Solgaard

Adrian Solgaard (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 removed the G11 speedy of Domdeparis (ping) because I think it is not purely promotional and A7 is at best a gray line ($1m in crowdfunding is something, and there is an award). This being said, I see no claim of notability for Lifepack, and if Interlock is notable (dubious) the biography still needs to go - it is the lock, not the inventor, that is notable. TigraanClick here to contact me 15:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you've lost me...you did nominate this article for deletion ? Domdeparis (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The point being made is that this doesn't qualify for speedy deletion, but does qualify for deletion on the grounds of notability under the standard process of discussion here. I am offerring no opinion on either point, but just trying to prevent you from being lost. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion and AFD are different processes, with different rules for what qualifies. If an article contains any claim of notability at all, then it can't be speedied for notability issues — but it can still be AFD'd for notability issues if the notability claim isn't a compelling or properly sourced one. The difference is that speedy makes the article go away instantly, while AFD is a process that lasts at least a week and allows people the latitude to research and improve the article if it's salvageable — so speedy has much narrower conditions for what qualifies, and even an obviously deletable article isn't necessarily a speediable article if it doesn't meet those specific conditions. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, sorry I didn't see this page where I could comment. Adrian is a guy from my area. The campaign made 613 on Kickstarter, but via indiegogo (google lifepack indiegogo) it's over a million usd. I added the lock page as well, that won some awards. I added a 30 under 30 list I found him on as well. I'm new at wikipedia stuff, so I'm trying to do my dues by contributing to some other articles as well. Does this clarify? Jesperxson (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:02, 16 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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:53, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gaetano Naccarato

AfDs for this article:
Gaetano Naccarato (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. Award is for a promotional short. Fails to demonstrate notability. reddogsix (talk) 14:49, 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. MER-C 12:15, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lodging.com

Lodging.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)

Fails GNG. Only ~20 results on Google News, most of them are about a lawsuit that mentions the company with a few others. Also made by a COI editor. CerealKillerYum (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:34, 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) 12:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Mojo

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

Still a non-notable hip hop group; article was kept simply because nobody else turned up for AfD round 1. There is one link to a blog, otherwise is unsourced. A search for sources just brings back an Allmusic page and lots of self-published or insignificant things. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 14:13, 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. MBisanz talk 01:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Artist Publishing Group

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

nn "independent music publishing company" - independent of independent reliable sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 14:06, 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 redirect to Culinary tourism. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 07:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Food tours

Food tours (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 WP:NOTGUIDE - propose deletion as reads like a travel guide. Perhaps something to move across to WikiVoyage? Mike1901 (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:55, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aamir Ali Sultan

Aamir Ali Sultan (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)

It is asserted in this article that Mr Aamir Ali Sultan is a "well known playback singer". The references - such as they are - do not support this assertion.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 17:56, 6 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) 12:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Umart

Umart (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've declined a speedy on this article mainly because of its age. However, in the 10 pages of ghits I've looked at, I saw was nothing I would consider a reliable independent source. (I did find an insolvency report, but wouldn't consider that of worth.) The references given are a Bloomberg profile, the company site, and a report of an armed raid on one of their shops. Peridon (talk) 12:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:36, 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America1000 06:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Surau Zainudiniah

Surau Zainudiniah (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)

Was PRODded and dePRODded a month ago. This is a non-notable local mosque in Malaysia. No hits at all in GNews and GBooks. With only 45 unique Google hits, I'd say that this utterly fails WP:GNG. Moreover, it is not written in English --HyperGaruda (talk) 12:12, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 12:12, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 12:12, 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 as WP:G7. Just Chilling (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Easily led: a history of propaganda

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

Delete as the subject fails WP:BKCRIT. The paltry mentions I found don't indicate GNG to me and at present the article's only reference is the book itself. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:20, 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. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Pop Up

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

Fails WP:GNG. Hardly any independent in-depth coverage, WP:PEACOCK Kleuske (talk) 10:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:34, 12 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) 12:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Cavallo

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

Fails WP:NSOCCER and WP:GNG, youth player who has not played senior football. Also the article is completely unsourced. SuperJew (talk) 10:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 16:58, 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. MER-C 12:16, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Julian

AfDs for this article:
Andre Julian (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)

Promotion for non notable businessman. He lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Comments from him are not independent coverage about him. Nothing good for notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:28, 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 delete. MER-C 12:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xavier West

Xavier West (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)

Promotion for non notable bit part actor. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:28, 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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leopold Frankenberger, Jr.

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

For many years, it was a redirect. Then, in 2009, a standalone article was created. It was AfDed, with the nomination quickly withdrawn. Subsequently, there was consensus at the talk page to merge the content to Alois Hitler, since the very existence of the individual is doubtful. A couple of days ago it was recreated by a user in good standing. However, I still do not see how we need a standalone article, and we should have once a proper AfD discussion. Ymblanter (talk) 07:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to something akin de:Frankenberger-These Agathoclea (talk) 13:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 09:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:55, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to invalid sourcing. The subject is alleged to have been Adolf Hitler's father Alois's biological father. The first cited sentence states, "Nazi claims have disputed that Hitler had any Jewish heritage", sourced to [13], a book which states that "Nazi official Hans Frank suggested that Alois's mother had been employed as a housekeeper for a Jewish family in Graz, and that the family's 19-year-old son Leopold Frankenberger had fathered Alois". So that contradicts the sentence it is being cited for. For that matter, the book's next sentence states that "no record has been produced of Leopold Frankenberger's existence". The second cited sentence states, "Frankenberger was born early in 1818 in Graz, Austria to Leopold Frankenberger, Sr. and his wife, likely during the annual trade fair in Graz", sourced to [14]. That page has no mention of Frankenberger. This article appears to be based primarily on misinterpretation or misuse of the sources that it cites and partly on unsourced speculation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • More on the misuse of sources:
  1. The article says, "19-year-old Leopold fathered Alois Hitler out of wedlock", cited to [15]. That book says, "Attorney Hans Frank speculated that the Fuhrer's paternal grandfather, Maria Anna Schicklgruber might have been impregnated by 19 year old Leopold Frankenberger, son of her alleged Jewish employer. Most historians reject this theory because no Frankenberger family resided in Graz circa 1836 when Alois Hitler Sr. was conceived."
  2. The article says, "He [Frankenberger] was alleged to have paid the child-support money as hush money", cited to [16]. That book says, "The third possibility [of candidates for Alois Hitler's father] was that Maria Anna was working for a Jewish family known as the Frankenbergers. She could have been made pregnant by one of the sons, Leopold Frankenberger. In an effort to hush up the matter, the Frankenbergers paid her some money as compensation. [¶] The problem with this theory is that there were no Jews living in Graz during this period. They had been banished and did not return until around 1860s, long after Alois was born. Even if the Frankenbergers did exist, this theory implied that they had the money to buy Maria Anna's silence. Since Adolf Hitler's paternal grandfather was poor, then the possible father of Alois Hitler could not have been a Frankenberger."
  3. The article says, "Leopold and his father paid child support for Alois for several years, so he probably played at least a moderate role in his son's early life", cited to [17]. That book does claim that the Frankenbergers paid child support to Maria, but says nothing at all about whether Leopold had any role in Alois's early life. In addition, the book says that Leopold Frankenberger died circa 1860, whereas this article portrays him as living an additional 52 years until 1912. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. since the article can be improved with better source-s-se the German WP article mentioned above. The present article should be rewritten on the basis of the information there. The subject is notable. I'm not sure what the title should best be. DGG ( talk ) 01:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. North America1000 03:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I will ping K.e.coffman who is generally knowledgeable about this topic. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I'm not familiar with the subject of Hitler's ancestry; I'd like to ping @Kierzek, Obenritter, and Diannaa: who have edited on related topics. I would add that in the current form I do not find the article adding value to the project; I thus believe it should be redirected to Alois Hitler until such time that it's sufficiently improved to warrant a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as stand alone article; per WP:fringe and fails WP:RS for WP:V. This "article" remains me of what Sir Ian Kershaw wrote about the rumors of Strasser's statement on Hitler's sexuality: "ought to be viewed as the fanciful anti-Hitler propaganda of an outright political enemy"; p. 219 of Hitler: A Biography. He goes on to state there were other tales, which have "hinted darkly" at Hitler ancestry. Hitler's family tree is on page 4 and shows Alois his father and Johann Georg Hiedler with a strong arrow and a smaller secondary arrow to Johann Nepomuk Hiedler (Huttler) possibility Alois father. Johann Georg Hiedler was during his lifetime the stepfather and posthumously legally declared birth father of Alois. p. 2. Kershaw gives the story no validity as to Frankenberger. As noted by historian Frank McDonough, Leopold Frankenberger's existence has never been documented. p. 20 of Hitler and the Rise of the Nazi Party. It should be remembered that Wikipedia is not a tabloid and not a newspaper, either. Kierzek (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per assessment by editor Kierzek. If anyone wants to create an en.wiki article similar to de:Frankenberger-These, this can be done from scratch. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Concur with both @K.e.coffman: and @Kierzek:. This article should be deleted.--Obenritter (talk) 02:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In light of the above concerns, particularly those by Kierzek and Metropolitan90, we can at least TNT the article. The sources are either not reliable or do support the content. Accordingly, a TNT works well here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per improper sourcing and the fact that he hasn't even been officially proven to have existed Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:30, 20 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 merge to eSports. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ESports in Thailand

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

Unsourced article says nothing beyond the fact that eSports exist in Thailand in much the same way as every other country (same games are popular, local tournaments are played, they're streamed online), and that the phenomenon in fact "isn’t popular as much". McGeddon (talk) 09:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: What exactly is the rationale for suggested deletion in this case? If it's the lack of sources, there are plenty of news articles providing an introduction and overview of the status of e-sports in Thailand.[18][19][20][21][22] Or is it the actual status of e-sports in Thailand itself that is the cause of concern? Or the current shape of the article? --Paul_012 (talk) 10:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, perhaps this should have been a merge suggestion, on reflection. The problem is that it's broadly just a content fork from eSports: it's covering the same basic ground in saying that eSports exist, that certain games are popular, that tournaments are played, that gaming websites cover them, that games are streamed online. It's not claiming anything particularly unique about Thai eSports, beyond the names of some local tournaments and YouTube channels. --McGeddon (talk) 10:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral – The current quality of an article isn't relevant at all in a deletion discussion. A topic is considered notable and worth having an article on if there are reliable sources documenting it, and they apparently are for this subject. I agree, though, that nothing would be lost if this got deleted. I'd much rather see it improved to actually say something interesting and incorporate sources. Until then, this thing is pretty useless. I don't see a reason to merge, though. ~Mable (chat) 09:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 12:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge verifiable content to eSports. Its WP:TOOSOON for spinouts like this. This sort of thing may be more appropriate when the esports article is so large we start splitting it out according to various countries/regions...but we don't seem to be there yet, and it doesn't seem like Thailand shouldn't particularly be that first step yet... Sergecross73 msg me 12:46, 3 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. MBisanz talk 01:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Cephas

Gina Cephas (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 WP:GNG. Don"t really find any thing notable and verifiable about this person. Historical Ben (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 09:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject fails WP:MUSICBIO and GNG as search results basically bring up only download links except this which I think isn't enough. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:38, 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. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 07:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anai Mogini

Anai Mogini (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)

At the moment, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY; have only played at a very low youth level; media coverage is routine. Some of these players are as young as 12 and, yes, I suspect some will be notable in time but, at best, these are a case of WP:TOOSOON. Spiderone 08:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please close so that I can renominate the non-notable ones as individual AfDs Spiderone 19:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Anuching Mogini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mahmuda Akter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Masura Parvin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nargis Khatun (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nazma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ruksana Begum (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sanjida Akhter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shamsunnahar (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Taslima (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sheuli Azim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Spiderone 08:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 09:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the four cited by Fenix down as meeting GNG; I also failed to perform more research before !voting. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 03:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the following - the four players below all have had lengthy interview with national newspapers or significant articles written about them in addition to more medium length coverage and have a large amount of more brief mentions in more routine match reporting:
Anai Mogani and Anuching Mogani. Clear GNG from google search as evidenced by the below. The fact they are twins has helped them garner a decent amount of coverage.
  1. Anuching, Anai to become the first twins to represent Bangladesh women's football - dedicated article in national newspaper
  2. The unstoppable twins - dedicated article from Dhaka Tribune
  3. Realising Young Dreams - cached page but a lengthy article / interview in a national newspaper
  4. Unrelenting Passion - couple of paragraphs on each squad player
Sanjida Akhtar. GNG indicated by the following english language sources, would expect more in local languages:
  1. Sanjida scores 4.61 article on how the player balances school with international football
  2. Unrelenting Passion - couple of paragraphs on each squad player
  3. Feeling Like The Table Is Shaking: Sanjida
Shamsunnahar. GNG indicated by the following english language sources, would expect more in local languages:
  1. ‘I dream of playing in the World Cup’ - lengthy interview with player in Dhaka Tribune
  2. Unrelenting Passion - couple of paragraphs on each squad player
Delete the following: Mahmuda Akter, Masura Parvin, Nargis Khatun, Nazma, Ruksana Begum, Taslima. All Fail NFOOTY as have not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subjects have garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Of all the players, bar Taslima, who seems to have gained some tangential coverage following an assault on her father, the only source I could find that went into any detail outside of routine match reporting was this one, which is insufficient on its own for GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another dedicated article for Sanjida Sanjida in 7th heaven.
Masura Parvin selected for national team 1 2in 2014 but whether she played or not, that is not sure. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure whether these players meet WP:NFOOTY, this indicates that the men's competition at the very least was an U23 tournament, though it is not explicit about the women's tournament. Given the age of some of the girls noted here though, it does seem like a junior competition. Can anyone confirm? Fenix down (talk) 09:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fenix down:, the tournament's wiki page is 2016 South Asian Games – Women's. And it is certainly not U23 tournament as the age of top three goal scorer are 24, 26, 29. Also you can see the age column of tournament team squads. Also, while the Indian Women's football senior team will be fielded in the South Asian Games, the Men's football team will feature U-23 players. (quoted from news article). Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Ibrahim Husain Meraj: I would update my comments above accordingly, however, can you confirm that she has actually played? The sources in the tournament article are a bit threadbare and do not mention her. Being part of a squad is not sufficient to pass WP:NFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 10:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fenix down:, Sheuli Azim, Sanjida Akhter, Shamsunnahar, Srimoti Krishnarani all played against Nepal in first game of 12th SA Games in 5th February, 2016. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 03:04, 2 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. Sam Walton (talk) 11:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ewan Clancy

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

Seems to be only 'famous' for one newspaper article and being possibly, but not confirmed, a relative of Abby Clancy. See WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Spiderone 08:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Indeed he is the subject of one article in the British tabloid The Sun and that is basically it. Newspapers and tabloids always feature "example citizen" in their stories to get their point across, that makes those persons not notable. Apart from this single article in The Sun there is literally nothing out there on him. He is not a "personality" at all, he is just an example (one of many) used by The Sun to underline their story about teens using mobile phones. I dont even think that WP:SINGLEEVENT does apply, because there isnt even an event at all, he is just a completely non notable person. The article should therefore be deleted on the ground of general non-notability per WP:GNG. Dead Mary (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:21, 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. WP:SOFTDELETEish given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Class

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

fails GNG CerealKillerYum (talk) 08:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:06, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as all we have here is thinly hanging claims of another group and he worked with them, there's literally nothing else beyond that and examining both the information and sources, even casually, shows this. SwisterTwister talk 05:09, 16 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 speedily deleted under criteria A7 and G11. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Smith Italia

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

Fails GNG and, along side with that, is terribly written. CerealKillerYum (talk) 08:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 07:47, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:44, 5 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 redirect to Victorious: Music from the Hit TV Show. MBisanz talk 01:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're the Reason (Victoria Justice song)

You're the Reason (Victoria Justice song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article was nominated for speedy deletion criterion A9, which clearly does not apply here. However, it is only sourced to Amazon and itunes, where one can buy the song, and my search of any sources describing it in any depth (beyond the text of lyrics and proof of existence) failed. Ymblanter (talk) 07:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:47, 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 no consensus. While ambassadors aren't inherently notable, there's disagreement about whether there is enough coverage for an article about this one.  Sandstein  21:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Susantha De Alwis

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO - being an ambassador does not establish automatic notability. Dan arndt (talk) 07:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per WP:DIPLOMAT: " If an individual who is, or was, the "head of mission" meets the criteria in a well-respected essay (such as WP:SOLDIER) an individual biography article can be created ". Therefore, since the subject was a head of mission. It justifies the presence of this article. Cossde (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
there is no inherent notability of ambassadors, otherwise none would be deleted. Secondly there have been at least 2 proposals at WP:BIO to give ambassadors inherent notability. Both have failed. LibStar (talk) 09:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
thankyou for finding these. The first one appears a dead link. The 2 obituary articles may be suitable. However is there coverage during their life? LibStar (talk) 09:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As this is not a notable individual. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, there is no such thing as automatic notability simply because an individual is an ambassador - needs to be supported by evidence that the individual is notable. There is plenty of precedence for the deletion of articles on ambassadors where there is no evidence of notability. Dan arndt (talk) 14:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
this is a WP:ILIKEIT kind of reasoning with zero demonstration of how WP:BIO is met. LibStar (talk) 14:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly if there was such thing as inherent notability of ambassadors, then none of the articles on ambassadors would be deleted, which is not the case. Secondly there have been at least two proposals, that I am aware of, at WP:BIO to give ambassadors inherent notability. Both of which have failed. So unless you can provide evidence that there is a WP policy that supports your view, the article fails to establish notability. Dan arndt (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the United Nations Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Per WP:WHYN, we require coverage to have an article. In this case, we don't have enough to write an article. However, I do see a claim of significance in being the Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the United Nations. There might be coverage which we haven't found out. Accordingly, I would suggest a redirect to this article. This preserves the edit history and in case someone can find more stuff, it can be restored. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to this biography, he did hold the position, but note that this was the UN in Geneva. The list in Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the United Nations includes those in New York, not Geneva. See the official NY list. Icebob99 (talk) 02:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Island (where that biography/tribute is published) is, I think, the second largest English language newspaper in Sri Lanka. On the other hand, the tribute is written by Leelananda de Silva, so it is not completely independent. Smmurphy(Talk) 03:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Found some more interesting sources. [23] says that he was the Sri Lankan representative at Geneva. It also says that he served as the Secretary of the Political Committee of the 1976 Colombo NAM Summit. [24] & [25] & [26] articles which say that he was the Ambassador to Washington. Here is an article he wrote for LA Times [27]. He was good enough to be at White House State Dinners with the prime minister of Sri Lanka and a select few other guests, according to this Washington Post article [28]. Ambassadors to USA tend to be the best among the lot in most nations. Lack of more references can probably be attributed to Sri Lanka's lack of news worthiness in the world stage. PierceBrosnan007 (talk) 04:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - newspapers.com [29] isn't the best for finding recent articles, and I can't access these, but the site shows a few US articles from the 1980s and early 1990s that do seem to provide in depth coverage of De Alwis. Smmurphy(Talk) 13:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment essentially these are the exact same article reprinted in different regional newspapers - which is basically a mention in passing, nothing in depth that establishes notability. Dan arndt (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree. The newspapers.com link I gave has 8 articles, 5 of which are unique. None of the repeats come from different papers, rather they come from different printings of the same paper. While the papers could be considered regional, all were nationally respected at the time and, I think, had reporters that covered national news.
Also, note in your searches that there is a common alternate spelling, "Susanta De Alwis". Under this spelling, a couple more titles show up: in 1978, he was chairman of the Co-ordinating Bureau of Non-Aligned Countries and in 1987, he was elected chairman of the International Telecommunications Satellite Organization. Smmurphy(Talk) 00:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
no. There is no inherent notability of being an ambassador to/from a 'major nation". As an admin you should know better. LibStar (talk) 10:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moragodage Christopher Walter Pinto

Moragodage Christopher Walter Pinto (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 lawyer & diplomat. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO in that the references cited are only mentions in passing. There is no inherent notability in either being a 'legal adviser' to a Government Department nor being ambassador. The prize mentioned is a high school prize (and not a notable prize either). Dan arndt (talk) 07:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
that's an essay. There is no inherent notability of ambassadors. This has been clear consensus on this as many ambassador articles have been deleted. LibStar (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is much coverage in local media on Pinto Lanka ready to make massive seabed claim New Sri Lankan Ambassador to The Netherlands presents Credentials Sri Lanka’s MCW Pinto appointed Arbitrator for Dispute between Denmark and the EU Sri Lanka’s Fifty Years at the UN Future of Sri Lanka lies in the sea National interests play paramount role in taking decisions Lanka ready to make massive seabed claim Lankan judge in international tribunal . Cossde (talk) 08:00, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
the articles about the sea bed dispute are just one line mentions. Not in depth coverage. LibStar (talk) 10:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As this is not a notable individual. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:47, 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. There doesn't seem to be a solid consensus here for deletion , however if one wish proceed with merge or redirect, feel free to continue the discussion on the talk page so a consensus to merge or redirect can be gauged. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SolidFire

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

Delete and Salt, advertising article, not only deleted once before at AfD, but in fact started last year by an advertising-only account who pseudo-contributed as an "advertising removal" account but apparently took the time to not only start this advertising article again but also review and accept another user's own advertisement; I'll note all of the sources listed here are as expected, PR and republished, wherever published since that's exactly what the contents are, only focusing with the company's own words and thoughts of advertising itself, something my own searches are also finding....from their own published websites, so it's not even actual efforts of republishing if they are still only hosted at the company website. The user's own efforts alone including to seemingly make this article "substantial" with simple PR sources and mentions show enough concerns to question how elaborate this advertising campaign was. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include, but are not limited to: [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], and more coverage in bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. Concerns about tone in the article can be addressed by copy editing it. North America1000 13:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into NetApp. This company came and went in five years, so will not become more notable. W Nowicki (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I considered merge but this SolidFire is in fact mentioned there in a sufficient form and this can therefore be deleted since it's simply advertising. Also, as for the listed sources, they are all literally advertising wherever published, take the "SolidFire breaths life!" caption for one, everything is literally simply advertising; for example, the WallStreetJournal is not only from their business contributor blog, but it's simply advertising how they gained money for their own business, the ComputerWeekly is essentially still only advertising and is also focused with its connections to NetApp. Then take the ZDNet (also has been established as a questionable source): "SolidFire offers flexible purchasing model for data center storage!".
The NetworkWorld also only advertises what information there to advertise the company and then TheRegister is literally an interview with the CEO advertising his company. Therefore we cannot honestly call any of this actual substance, independence or actual meaning, if it's still in fact advertising, whatever and wherever it was published, because that's also what churnalism means and is what's still happening. Once we start making excuses of a news source publishing PR therefore making it acceptable, we are still accepting advertisements overall.
So you see the pattern of all of this, like with all other advertisements here at AfD, in that it all only advertises the company itself and also naturally includes information only the company itself would know such as literally showing its own finance numbers or business plans & thoughts. Also, therefore, we cannot "Simply fix the advertising" if the advertising consists of the entire article, information and sources included.SwisterTwister talk 23:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I should have checked the proposed target first. OK, sure, although NetApp could be beefed up a bit too. W Nowicki (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is not answering or satisfying how the article has been restarted each time as blatant advertising, therefore the fact the listed sources are then clear published and republished advertising information by the company itself, there's no compromises about that unless we want to damn ourselves as an advertising webhost. SwisterTwister talk 21:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't the purpose of AfD. Here, we look to see if an article topic is notable enough for its own article. This is. Any other tangental problems you have with the article or the authors are not for here. -- HighKing++ 17:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There exists some reliable sources in the article and Northamerica1000 has pointed out multiple reliable sources with content that is clearly more than just regurgitated primary sources. With multiple RS, the topic has been shown to be notable per WP:GNG. Any promotional or non-neutrality issues can be better solved through editing, not deletion. Hence, keep. --Mark viking (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's the thing though, sources #1, 3, 4,6, 8 and 9 are all either publications known for publishing and republishing company-authored advertising, and this is clear since the articles always contained something of "The company supplied this information today", "The company wants to say to its clients today here", "This information comes from the company's website today", etc. All these sources have clearly stated such blatancy especially when such articles noticeably then also contain "The company's CEO said today", "The company's spokesman gave this statement here today", etc. None of that was independent news nor was it actual news at all, since it was simply company-published words.
As it is, especially websites such as Forbes have notoriously become PR webhost motivators, since the "journalists" will be hired freelance PR journalists, not actual staff journalists, therefore emphasizing the natural risks of accepting such blatancy, simply because the Forbes website wants to both include the company's abilities in its self-advertising and then (2) get extra money from both the hosted advertising and the company's own payments, and (3) Forbes never then has to pay any full-time staff since they were all either company employees or hired freelance employees.
There the contents above are not company-univolved, significant or substantial and it literally only took me a few minutes to confirm in the listed links above (the 2 other comments above, "Merge" and "Redirect" both acknowledge this is not independently convincing either), therefore we shouldn't willingly mistake it as such "news". Thus, simply saying "it's a news source" is not applying in fact the contents themselves are still eternally damned as company advertising. SwisterTwister talk 21:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – We'd be damned as an encyclopedia if articles with very minor promotional tone are blanket deleted instead of simply copy edited to address such concerns. The only promotional content, which is very minor, is in the History section concerning the company's founder, which can easily be trimmed. North America1000 22:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would need a rewrite to make it comply with WP:PROMO. Copyedit it all you wish but I can tell you it won't make much of a difference. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 22:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 22:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 22:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. Just promotional blurb. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - it's hard to expect to be taken seriously as an encyclopedia if a company that is worth USD$870 million is not considered notable. I'll take a shot and see what I can do. It's also unfortunate that the AfD process causes reference stuffing to demonstrate notability. One source should usually be enough to substantiate each statement. This skeleton has almost zero puffery now as I can see. Getting into Gartner's Magic Quadrant is the gold standard of recognition for tech companies.Timtempleton (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote the article, tightened up the sources, corrected some incorrect info and flushed out the history.Timtempleton (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote against merge - SolidFire is no longer independent, and Netapp apparently now markets the products as Netapp SolidFire, so the SolidFire article will no longer need to be updated, but can stay as a historical archive. Merging the info such as the history into the Netapp article unnecessarily complicates that article. In my experience most acquired and discontinued tech companies keep their articles. MCI Communications, Covad, ADC Telecommunications, etc.Timtempleton (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closer - Compare how the article has looked after all this time, from the AfD start, to after and to finally now, the only consistency that has stayed is the same exact PR advertising that is known for such articles, which is literally only focusing with what the company wants to advertise about themselves, and this shows since the fact the sources all repeat this too.
Therefore it's not something that we would keep in considerations for WP:SPAM and WP:NOT, which are both policy, and thus WP:BASIC and WP:GNG be damned, because it would mean we are confirming we're not a business listing and company webhost, and the history as it is shows this was only ever planned as an advertisement, therefore not considering that, is only damaging enough and, worse, if we take no actions. SwisterTwister talk 02:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sources don't seem to be press releases - can you point out specific instances which can easily be removed?Timtempleton (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge some more of the content into NetApp. Its our usual practice to keep the material under the name of the current company unless the earlier company was famous, or more important. But the article on that company needs some attention as well. DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I already voted against a merge - it seems there's too much info to make a merge work without making Netapp's article too clunky. How would you do it? It looks like Netapp is selling a product called Solidfire [39] (which should probably be added to the Netapp article product section) but that the company SolidFire is no more.Timtempleton (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  Topic is wp:notable, see sources found by NorthAmerica1000.  Claims of advertising saturating the multiple reliable sources, the article content, and placed there by agents of the company is lacking a foundation.  No need to discuss merge here, and such a result is not binding even then.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There has specifically been analysis of these sources and they show nothing but republished and reformatted PR advertising, especially with the fact everything is consistent with what their own website press releases say about it, hence certainly not independent if it's simply republished from company website PR. WP:N means nothing when policies WP:SPAM and WP:NOT apply, both of which are non-negotiable. When we no longer consider policies such as this, we're damned. SwisterTwister talk 20:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your passion for protecting Wikipedia from blatant promotionalism, but that's all gone now. An $870 million dollar acquisition is inherently notable, regardless of anyone's opinion of the value of the news sources.Timtempleton (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to NetApp; anything useful can be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from nominator' - If needed, I am in fact willing for a Redirect as long as we can seal this article's fate from becoming advertising again. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this article is undoubtedly written in WP:NPOV. We shouldn't delete an article because it was written as an advertising vehicle; after all, if the subject is notable, then Wikipedia should have an article for it. Just because it was created by an advertising editor does not make this less notable, and in fact, I haven't found any instances of advertising. Also, previous AfD was by no means conclusive of this form of the article. Even on cursory glance, this AfD is a lot more in depth than its first one. Icebob99 (talk) 02:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually policy including WP:NOT explicitly states advertising can be removed on sight, regardless of anything, and even the CSD applies and allows this; therefore because everything has shown above this was in fact only started for advertising, it's enough, regardless of anything else that would "perhaps suggest" otherwise. The fact it was even then started by an advertising account emphasizes this, and that's not something we should allow. An account that was only ever willing to focus with adding advertising for companies in hence an advertising account, and WP:DUCK would apply in this.
As I said above, I'm willing for the article relink to the parent instead, but there's enough Delete and merge consensus to show this is simply not convincing as its own article. WP:NOT policy is not negotiable (nor should we make it so), compared to guidelines WP:BASIC, WP:CORP and WP:GNG which in fact are. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm reading your comments correctly, you're saying that even if a subject is notable, if the article was started by someone with a conflict of interest and/or it's too advertorial in tone, instead of fixing it, it should be deleted? What if the editor simply didn't know the site guidelines, assuming good faith? No consensus usually means keep, but also keep this on your watch list.Timtempleton (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
NOT ADVERTISING is basic policy, and is more important than questions of notability. If something is really notable, a person without NPOV will write an article. If anyone thinks it should be kept, they should first rewrite it. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The foundation for what defines "really notable" here is the premise that there are people "with NPOV" and "without NPOV".  Wikipedia does not identify such categories.  It is an elitist argument that editors can be labeled and divided, and that notability is defined by the contributions of right-thinking editors.  See WP:BATTLEGROUND. 

I also get the sense of a deeper idea here that policies and guidelines don't apply to the contributions of either side of this labeling.

This foundation is then used to state a fallacious argument, as follows.  To clarify the fallacy it helps to redefine "a person with NPOV" and "a person without NPOV" as "a person".  The fallacy then falls out as either the statement, "if something is really notable, a person will write an article" or "if something is really notable, a person will write an NPOV article".  But this is a fallacy because if something is "really notable", a person may or may not write an article.  Or this is a fallacy because if something is "really notable", a person may or may not write an NPOV article.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to NetApp per WP:NOPAGE. Literally every single source I saw mentioned it as a part of NetApp. We don't create articles for every small subsidiary unless the subsidiary can show notability independent of the parent company. That is not happening here. Accordingly, I suggest a redirect with history preserved. If someone wants to add information, they can pull it out from the history. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:39, 5 December 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) 12:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Wetherill

Justin Wetherill (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)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UBreakiFix and had I known this CEO article actually existed, I would've co-nominated it with the company article, since both of them are not only blatantly advertising complete with specifying PR awards and his story about the company, but the history itself consists of only advertising-focused accounts which is self-explanatory; simply for sheer consistency, my searches unsurprisingly found PR and republished PR, which is also self-explanatory. The benefits of this AfD will also be to bar any future attempts since the company article was itself deleted once before and is now salted. In fact, looking at the article closely again, I see one of the accounts, Kellz303 in fact pseudo-acted like a "advertisement removal" account with apparent efforts of removing a few advertising information parts here and there of other articles before letting go of the account, but not before actually reviewing and accepting this article to mainspace themselves and also subsequently starting another advertising article, SolidFire (currently at AfD) themselves....Yet another suspiciously self-explanatory. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:52, 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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 11:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mbielu-Mbielu-Mbielu

Mbielu-Mbielu-Mbielu (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)

Simple reason, it is an article about a living stegosaur that was sighted like once or twice and about a word that appeared on a book by Roy Mackal. Also nominating Muhuru and Ngoubou. Kevinjonpalma11 (talk) 06:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure - there isn't a lot of coverage, but the term does appear to be covered in several books which are available on google books. JMWt (talk) 07:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Admittedly notability criteria for cryptids are a little strange, in that reliable sourcing means it's no longer a cryptid :p As far as coverage as an unconfirmed animal goes, this does seem to get a fair amount of mentions across the net.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Classical cryptid, mentioned in bibliography. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That seems an entirely unprovable assertion.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Take note that Mokele Mbembe and Burrunjor, also "dinosaur"-like cryptids are both covered in many sources - books, articles, and tribal legends. If that is not enough both have "foot print" left behind. Take also note that despite all that Burrunjor was deleted per an AFD because of lack of notability [40]. Off course, a creature with more reported sighting, more article coverage and even artifacts left would warrant a WP article more than these, right? Kevinjonpalma11 (talk) 23:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A highly speculative creature with no basis in fact, just scrappy hearsay. Even the article concedes, "No physical evidence for the creature exists." if it had even attained a measure of folklore importance that may be different. But a "few" sightings don't seem to raise it above the millions of other such unsubstantiated claims the world is so full of. Wait, I see a ghost! You did too? Let's put it on Wikipedia! Not trying to sound petulant, just making a candid point. Encyclopedic information should not be based on villager tidbits. However, if new evidence shows this alleged creature truly has a place in folklore, then that might be different. But you know what, I'll bet my lunch you never find it. Let's not use Wiki for inventing creatures out of thin air based on some hokey-pokey nonsense. I ask for a delete in the absence of further evidence for any folklore significance or valid scientific evidence of its existence. And one final note, the article's first line asserts the creature's existence as fact. I'd help fix that if I thought it deserved to be kept.--J. M. Pearson (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like to add, even within the speculative realm of cryptozoology, this alleged creature doesn't qualify. A "few sightings" with "no physical evidence" is not even above the worth of a vivid dream. No further evidence can be expected, because the article's own description of the "evidence" itself precludes that possibility. Thanks --J. M. Pearson (talk) 14:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect... somewhere (maybe List of Cryptids. In the Cryptid topics, leaving a redlink is clickbait that will result in all of us being back here for AfD rounds 2, 3, 5, 10, and 52. :-P Though speedy is tempting, "no physical evidence" pretty much is the definition of a cryptid. Montanabw(talk) 03:37, 7 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. Feel free to redirect if the target article (Xbox controller) ever adds a reliably sourced mention of the drivers, but it would be inappropriate to redirect if there is no mention. czar 00:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

XBCD

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

Fails WP:GNG, as tagged by Aoidh in February 2013. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 23:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:57, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 11:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Chambers burning death

Jessica Chambers burning death (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)
NOTE: If this article is kept -- I am not voting as I am unsure -- the name should be changed to Murder of Jessica Chambers, as per established MOS format consistency. Quis separabit? 17:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOTNEWS. A tragedy indeed, but not every gruesome murder needs a Wikipedia article. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:56, 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. MBisanz talk 02:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jen Richards

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

No reliable sources. Fails WP:BLP. Also look into his company We Happy Trans. Abbottonian (talk) 05:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC) User:Abbottonian has been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject is notable in the area of transgender per the hundreds of news items written on the subject and the Google Books and Google Scholar items associated with the subject. User:Abbottonian seems to have a personal issue with recognizing transgender people since he refers to Jen Richards's website as "his website". I suggest that User:Abbottonian recuse himself from this debate if he has a personal issue with transgender people. — goethean 12:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Goethean: I have no interest or conflict with transgender, just made a gender mistake while generating AfD. Where page is concerned, his/her website might be notable to have Wikipedia page but Jen Richards do not have independent notability. Being a website founder, and creator of non-notable (Her Story (web series)) is not enough. Abbottonian (talk) 13:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC) User:Abbottonian has been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.[reply]
Johnpacklambert, those are not the correct pronouns: Jen Richards is a transgender woman so we need to use female pronouns when discussing her. I know this may seem nitpicky, but all AfD discussions are open to the world and we should, as Wikipedia editors strive to be inclusive. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:29, 12 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tech Cocktail

Tech Cocktail (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)

Similar history The Next Web or Your Story Such sources are being misused to cite abundance of spam on Wikipedia these days. highly misleading and building only promotional content, nothing else. Light2021 (talk) 05:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as corporate spam on an unremarkable event promoter & blatant attempt to WP:INHERIT notability from more notable entities:
  • events organization for startups, entrepreneurs, and technology enthusiasts,[1] co-founded in 2006 by former Tribune Company and AOL employee Frank Gruber and early FeedBurner employee Eric Olson.[2][3]

References

  1. ^ Tech Cocktail on Crunchbase
  2. ^ First Tech Cocktail Post
  3. ^ DC’s startup scene: Entrepreneurship blooms in our nation’s capital
K.e.coffman (talk) 05:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 07:48, 5 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 redirect to Victorious 2.0: More Music from the Hit TV Show. Sam Walton (talk) 10:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Countdown (Victorious song)

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

Delete or merge into Victorious 2.0: More Music from the Hit TV Show. Abbottonian (talk) 04:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 4 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. Wifione Message 09:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All I Want Is Everything (Victoria Justice song)

All I Want Is Everything (Victoria Justice song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable song. Fails WP:NSONG. Redirect repeatedly reverted. SummerPhD (talk) 01:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect due to it failing WP:Notability (music)#Songs: "Most songs" (such as this one) "do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song." The redirect might continue getting reverted though, so I'm not sure if it would be better to just delete the entire thing. Chris (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2011 (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 1982 Lebanon War. MBisanz talk 01:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First Lebanon War

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

Delete or Redirect to Lebanon War as page links already exist there. Abbottonian (talk) 04:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Abbottonian, what are your reasons? Boleyn (talk) 08:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to 1982 Lebanon War because (a) that's the redirect which was in place from 2007 until the dab page was created last week, and (b) that article includes the words "First Lebanese War" whereas South Lebanon conflict (1985–2000) does not. In other words, revert the creation of this dab page, because one of the two entries does not mention the term in question so is not a valid dab page entry. I see no reason for the nominator's suggestion to redirect to Lebanon War. PamD 11:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's the Israeli name for Israel's 1982-2000 involvement in Lebanon. Since we have separate articles for the 1982-85 and the 1985-2000 periods, a disambiguation page is better than a redirect. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:54, 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. Clear consensus for the article to be retained. North America1000 11:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Rani

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 03:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She is the Captain of the Bangladesh women's national under-17 football team. --Nahid Hossain (talk) 06:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
so? Joeykai (talk) 07:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 07:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 07:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 07:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 07:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Joeykai: it would appear that the user has created several such articles; some players as young as 12! For example, see Nazma, Mahmuda Akter and Sheuli Azim. Worth investigating if someone can do so. Spiderone 08:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Actually those girls brings revolution in Bangladeshi football, as the country is conservative and women are not used to play football. Those girls became champion AFC under 14 south zone for two times. They became group champion in qualification round for AFC under 17 cup and qualify for the main tournament for first time on the merit. For those reason, the girls get wide coverage in national newspaper frequently. Thus the article fulfills the WP:GNG criterion. They get "Significant coverage" in TV and print media, "Reliable" as many of them are national, well-established newspaper, "Sources" as secondary sources, "Independent of the subject". You can find about 95 news results in google search for Krishna Rani in English and about 170 for Bengali search and also about 39 results in country's leading English newspaper The Daily Star (Bangladesh).
no Disagree, Then how does the article fails GNG? In WP:NFOOTY, there is a note that says "Youth players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG." Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 09:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The team, as a whole, is notable. The sources provided in the article are more to do with the team rather than Rani as an individual. I don't see how Rani herself meets GNG. Spiderone 10:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lack of, or complete absence of, coverage from independent, reliable sources on this woman as an individual rather than just part of a successful team, which does warrant an article. Spiderone 10:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Passes NFOOTY because of new evidence so now keep Spiderone 16:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Krishna's success turning the tide lengthy, dedicated article from national newspaper
  2. Under-16 women's team rewarded - further article from same newspaper with significant quotes from player and family
  3. Our very own Queen - Dedicate lengthy article / interview from Dhaka Tribune
  4. Captain Krishna - further lengthy article on player from Bengali media
These are just from the first page of a google search. Additionally there are loads of match reports which can help flesh out this article. To be honest, I'm not sure how these were missed by either @Joeykai: and @Spiderone:. Simply because someone is a junior footballer does not mean they are inherently non-notable. In instances like these it is even more important to follow WP:BEFORE. Fenix down (talk) 11:30, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjeev Sharma (filmmaker)

Sanjeev Sharma (filmmaker) (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 notability + No credible assertion of significance = No Thank You. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He is a notable Indian director directing films like Saat Uchakkey. It is my efforts to create an informative article about him. He is already much in news, IMDB and in blogs. If this page or pages like these are marked for deletion, It will defeat the purpose of wikipedia of sharing information. I have already placed references.Day000Walker (talk) 17:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:58, 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. MBisanz talk 01:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lucinda Bassett

Lucinda Bassett (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 credible claim of significance, fails WP:NOTABILITY. Piece also reads as very promotional. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 05:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 05:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 05:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 05:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Fails WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC. Yet one more from the seemingly infinite queue of self-help salespeople. I can find no significant coverage online from WP:RS, just a metric ton of self-promotion and press releases, and a few interviews in local press (e.g. Malibu Times, cited). There's some fairly interesting (mostly negative) discussion of her work by real psychologists on blogs, but again that's not WP:RS. Article was already speedied db-bio once in 2007, and once again yesterday. This latest attempt was created as Lucinda Redick Bassett for some reason, and linked by that name from self help by the same editor. Wikishovel (talk) 05:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No impact on literature. Nauseatingly promotional. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment i'm the one who started this page and the one who wrote it. I am not affiliated with the subject whatsoever and therefore this page is not written in an attempt to be promotional. The information I included was an attempt to make it verifiable and to demonstrate notability. Copy Editor (talk) 07:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Draft instead and I'm willing to take care of it while there because WorldCat shows over 2,000 library collections and these books are by major publishing companies which is in fact satisfying the authors notability (highest held book is in nearly 900 library alone), so that is improvable, and that is surely a sign of available book reviews and, once achieved with that, this is notable. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So many books are published by regular publishers that they can't all be notable. They will sell, probably, because of the vastly greater publicity that the publisher can generate, as opposed to the self-published who have to do all the work themselves. But sales are not what Wikipedia works on. I'd think ST is right on this, that more work is needed and a move to Draft space could be beneficial. Peridon (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. But what is a draft space? Copy Editor (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Different areas on Wikipedia have prefixes to the page names - this page in in the Wikipedia: (or WP:) space. This is for sort of official space. User: is user space, Special: is for odd things that the technically minded know all about (or claim they do...), Template: is for guess what, and articles don't have a prefix because that would confuse visitors even more than than now. Draft: is a fairly recent space, which is for things under construction that aren't yet ready for article space. In Draft: space, anyone can help to build a draft up (though I would doubt that very much of this goes on unless someone like ST offers help here at AfD). The alternative is moving to your userspace (where outside help is even less likely without direct appeal) and that would be to User:Copy Editor/title. In both user and draft spaces, the patrollers can usually only tag for copyvio, attack, advertising or hoax. Using either of these spaces is like using a nursery rather than scattering seeds in the garden. Peridon (talk) 11:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clean-up. The BLP is smarter but notability is still not improved. I still vote delete. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Notability is not improved because no better sources have been found. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
In 2001, Bassett took part in a collaborative venture alongside Roberta Flack, Diana Krall, F. Murray Abraham, and Nona Hendryx, all of whom contributed a track to the meditation album "Visionary Path." Bassett narrated a track called "Mountains." [44] [45] Copy Editor (talk) 09:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Adequate indicia of notability, published and a number of works. The tone is too promotional, but there have been improvements, and again, article quality is not a notability question. Montanabw(talk) 06:58, 5 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doughboy Beatz

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Unable to locate reliable secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 07:49, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This page has been active for years, as well as had many other Wikipedian edits, with no deletion flags. Search results on the subject may seem lacking with how common of a term "doughboy" is. He was notable enough of a music producer to have just received a verified badge on Twitter. [46] Also, according XXL (magazine), he just recently produced on a Billboard charting album which meets WP:BASIC. [47] Also, this seems to meet WP:MUSICBIO via MTV. [[48]] I appreciate everyone's time. __Boyboi87 (talk) 11:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Twitter link doesn't contribute to notability. The XXL Magazine link merely mentions his name. And the MTV link appears to be self-published; it sounds completely promotional, and at the bottom of the webpage it states "This site contains content from artists, fans, and writers from around the internet in it's natural form". Magnolia677 (talk) 13:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:MUSICBIO states that a subject "may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria: #2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." An instance was provided and sourced in the article you guys seem to be overlooking:
  • [49] - “Brandon produced Trai'D's breakout single "Gutta Chick" that made it's way onto the Billboard Hot 100 charts which jump started his production career.”
This was the spark that solidified me investing time into writing up the Doughboy profile in the first place. That meets WP:MUSICBIO. In addition, most of his productions are available on iTunes, so to dismiss all his work as being on non-notable mixtapes and non-charting albums as you and Magnolia677 said initially, is wrongful and misleading. Also, as the author of this subject’s entry, I can attest to the the fact that this Wiki derived from the MTV artist page--not the other way around. As this this shows, there was an actual “official website” but has since been shut down. The redirect to Wikipedia came after the fact entirely._Boyboi87 (talk) 13:43, 16 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 Voluntarily Userfied. The discussion was trending towards deletion at the time of userfication. AGF, just make sure to address the concerns before moving it back to article space, and hopefully we wont need to have a second discussion. Monty845 01:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Chambers

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Sources only support that she was one of the first pilots in this program. What is her notability for? Magnolia677 (talk) 01:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I went looking for secondary sources to support notability before nominating for deletion. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]
I spent a lot of time looking for and finding online sources to support Betty Chambers' notability. I believe that there are more sources and further information in book sources that are not digitized, but I am not able to go to the library and/or track these down at this point. Right now, this woman, who was awarded a Congressional Medal of Honor posthumously, and who was one of the earliest WASP pilots, has 20 citations for what I consider a solid stub article. It's not perfect but I think it passes notability and is now in condition to be Kept. While I agree that possibly the initial draft was not developed enough to be pushed to the mainspace, was part of a large initiative editathon that was done in conjunction with the National Archives, her notability is not in question, especially now. Please advise. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 00:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again I ask, aside from being one of many early female pilots, what is she notable for? Did she go on to set some aviation record, or run for Congress, or star in a movie? Magnolia677 (talk) 01:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I am confused here. Are you possibly confusing WASPs with the much larger WACs? The WASP program was highly selective, both mentally and physically rigorous, and was a program that produced pilots in a very short time. Within Chambers' class only 50% even passed. There were not many WASPs at all so it was a huge thing, and for this woman, whose husband was a pilot who died while in service to become a pilot herself -- while the mother of a baby not even a year old -- that is notable. Plus her son was featured in a very popular movie at the time, although I wanted to focus more on her than him. So yeah being a pilot was a big deal and makes her notable. This might be a failure on my part as there are a ton of resources in oral history collections and books on WASPs that would support her notability that I don't have access to or have a privacy lock until January 1, 2017. But for a stub I think this challenge to her notability is overly stringent, if anything has more to do with my inability to establish it than the facts of who she was. I would ask you to reconsider. Also I have asked for help from archival experts so please hold off on the deletion if possible. Again I think this AfD is unduly harsh but I am doing everything I can to address making article better. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 13:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When I nominated this article for deletion, I first looked online to see if her notability could be established through reliable sources. Only then did I nominated this article per WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO, as I didn't feel this bio met the criteria outlined there. Being someone's mother, or graduating from a rigorous training program, generally don't make a person notable enough for a Wikipedia article. It's really nothing personal. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I never said this was personal. I'm not sure where that comment comes from. This page was created during a GLAM initiative that focused on the gender gap and highlighting archival records from the U.S. National Archives. The resources are within the collections of archival collections so a quick google search is not going to be the indicator or notability. Actually the fact that this is the basis for your decision as to notability is a concern. Not all collections are digitized or discoverable in this way. Wikipedia can establish important tertiary sources like these archival holdings and oral histories. But to rely on a google search for this decision of historical figures, well that is what highlighting National Archives records is all about. Again, I think this should be reconsidered as a measurement of notability. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am working with archivists from NARA and TWU now to gather more information so because this is going to take time I am moving this page to my user space in order to protect the work already done and so I can continue to develop the page. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 16:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also: Magnolia677, please note that establishing notability using online sources when the subject was primarily active prior to 1960 and not a public figure presents some special challenges. We have no requirement here that sources establishing notability be available online at all. General Ization Talk 00:41, 4 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 redirect to Mississippi State College for Women. MBisanz talk 01:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laverne Greene-Leech

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Nearly everything published about her has to do with her receiving this award. Unable to locate secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not every desegregation of a university makes those involved notable. This occured 4 years after James Meredith needed US Marshalls to make it safely to class at the University of Mississippi. I think we need more coverage to justify a stand alone article. On the other hand I have to admit I think we also need better coverage on what happened at the University of Mississippi for the 4 years after the intimadation of Meredith.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Greene-Leech may not be notable (unless other sources are turned up), but the desegregation of MUW might be. I added sources as I found them and the more I worked on it, I think that Wiki would be better served either expanding this article to include the other women who desegregated MUW or incorporating the information into the MUW article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mississippi State College for Women (MSCW).  This target topic is a redirect, so the double-redirect bot will make a change, but the point remains that the topic of this AfD only need be covered in the context of MSCW integration.  When the MSCW article is written, the material from the Greene edit history will be useful, although an option also exists to expand the MUW article with the history of MSCW integration discovered by the new research.  Besides MSCW, I noticed a couple of more articles that are missing, Robert E. Hunt High School and the R.E. Hunt Museum and Cultural Center, both mentioned in http://www.cdispatch.com/news/article.asp?aid=20293.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:37, 5 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. Despite three relists, this is a BLP and no reliable 3rd party sources meeting GNG have been provided; the only possible close is therefore to delete. Black Kite (talk) 11:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

B.A.M.

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. This person appears to have co-produced songs for various notable artists, but there are few reliable secondary sources to support biographic notability. The article makes a claim of a Grammy Award nomination, though the source to support this doesn't once mention his name. It seems he was one of many who co-produced a few Grammy nominated songs--barely an indication of notability. The article also lists a hodge-podge of iTunes links, but most of the links don't even mention him. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - It is a stub article, but he was still Grammy Award nominated, nobody cares about your opinion about him being "barely nominated", he was still nominated regardless, which means that he still meets requirements for him to be notable for Grammy Award nomination. Xboxmanwar (talk) 13:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The two links at the bottom of the article supporting his Grammy nomination don't even mention his name. I'm not quite sure why you reverted my edit when I deleted them. Bogus links don't add much to an AfD. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Magnolia677: You don't understand how Grammy Award nominations work, those albums were nominated, which means that all the producers and songwriters on the album are also nominated because of their work on the album, all of the producers and songwriters name doesn't need to be on the nomination, only the artists name needs to be there since they are the main recipient, so they aren't bogus, you can see more information about this process here. Xboxmanwar (talk) 19:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 05:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  09:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please provide a link to a reliable secondary source which confirms this person was nominated for a Grammy? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Magnolia677: I already told you how the process works, I don't know why your asking this person for sources if you don't need them since they are automatically credited, as explained before. Xboxmanwar (talk) 03:26, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73: Doesn't matter, still Grammy nominated. Xboxmanwar (talk) 03:26, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Says who/what? Are you citing something in particular? Sergecross73 msg me 04:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73: They were producers on the Grammy nominated albums they worked on. Xboxmanwar (talk) 04:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand that. But there were a lot of writer/performers/production/engineer/assistants in these recordings. A Grammy doesn't magically make everyone in the building notable... Sergecross73 msg me 04:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked a few times in this discussion for a source which specifically states that B.A.M. was nominated for a Grammy, but the reply seems to be that because B.A.M. was tangentially involved in the production, they automatically fall under the Grammy nomination umbrella. Was the janitor in the recording also Grammy nominated? Magnolia677 (talk) 10:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Magnolia677: Well, since everybody on the album is automatically nominated for the Grammy, that would be plausible. Xboxmanwar (talk) 14:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will assert that TGT alone were nominated for the Grammy for the album Three Kings. According to this source, no fewer than 35 people assisted them to achieve this tribute, including:
  • Andrew Hey, B. Edwards Jr., Black TyProducer, Bob Robinson, Brandon "B.A.M." Alexander, Brandon Hodge, Carvin Haggins, D&D, Damon Thomas, Darius Logan, Devin L. Resnover, Dominique Logan, Don City, Eric Dawkins, Fabbien Nahouwou, Ginuwine, Harry Casey, Harvey Mason Jr., Ivan "Orthodox" Barias, James "JDoe" Smith, Javad "MrKlynik" Day, Javonte Pollard, Jay Valentine, Kenyon Dixon, Kristal "Tytewriter" Oliver, Lonny Bereal, Marcus "Whit" James, Marcus Hodge, Rick Finch, Robert Newt, Tank, The Underdogs, Tim & Bob, Tim Kelly, and Tyrese.
...but the nomination belongs to TGT. Otherwise, there would be some reliable source--maybe a sentence or two on the Grammy website--which says "Brandon "B.A.M." Alexander" was also nominated for this Grammy. It is indeed very awkward to ask those participating in this discussion to assume that all 35 of these people were "Grammy nominated". Magnolia677 (talk) 15:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Magnolia677: Read this for more info, but the nomination does not belong solely to just the performer, but to the whole team that helped make the album, you don't need a reliable source or any source for this since they are automatically nominated in the process. Xboxmanwar (talk) 15:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The link you provided leads to a large, unsourced section of a Wikipedia article. If the editor of that section had added sources I could confirm its truth; otherwise its circular sourcing. Could you please locate a reliable source to support this? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Magnolia677: Straight from the Grammy Awards website. Xboxmanwar (talk) 16:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the link to a webpage on the Grammy Award website. On that webpage it states: "The Record Of The Year category recognizes the artist’s performance as well as the overall contributions of the producer(s), recording engineer(s) and/or mixer(s) if other than the artist." However, that same website only lists the winners of the Record of the Year, not the nominees. To maintain text-source integrity, this source cannot support that Brandon "B.A.M." Alexander was a nominee for a Grammy. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Magnolia677: Again, you don't need a whole list of songwriters, producers, etc. that were on that album to be nominated, the citation you put from the FAQ of the Grammy Awards states exactly what it says, to recognize the artist and the songwriters, producers, etc., but the songwriters, producers, etc. don't need to bed listed because once the album is nominated, the crew is nominated, plus it would be a long list to add to. Xboxmanwar (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The even bigger issue is the lack of third party reliable sources that cover the subject in significant detail. It fails the WP:GNG - the ultimate standard we're trying to meet here. A Grammy Nom can be a good indicator of notability due to the increased likelihood for sourcing to exist, but it's not a substitute. (And it's probably less of an indicator when we're talking about a tangential production member and not a primary artist.) This is especially crucial because we're dealing with a WP:BLP. The fate of this article is ultimately going to boil down to whether or not there's significant coverage. So far I have not seen evidence of this. Sergecross73 msg me 17:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that confirms his production credits, but not the question of whether or not that itself proves his notability. I mean, look at the credits - there's over 50 people listed there. I counted around 7 to 8 of them had "Producer" in the title, and another 7 to 8 with "Engineer" in the title. A huge number of people were involved in the production of these releases - a Grammy Nom isn't enough to give a free pass to notability to everyone from the sessions. The fact that no one has produced any sources that satisfy the WP:GNG is telling as well. Sergecross73 msg me 14:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • He had a significant role in an album that meets WP:MUSICBIO 8. "Producer" isn't a token role in music (as opposed to its misuse in TV and cinema) - it means "recording artist", which lies somewhere between "director" and "editor". He's the top credited staff on Open Invitation. No one's suggesting that the accountants and vocal cleanup crew need articles, this isn't a slippery slope. 157.235.66.80 (talk) 17:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • MUSICBIO states that it may indicate notability. The doubt of this though, is, as already mentioned, there were 8 other producers involved as well. We don't know how involved he was in particular, nor can we verify the details because no one can come up with any sources that cover him in significant detail. As I alluded to above, things like MUSICBIO or WP:NALBUMS andWP:NSONGS are considered indicators of potential notability, but the WP:GNG is the actual standard here. The complete failure of the WP:GNG completely squashes out that potential. You'd be better off showing how many features Billboard has done on him or something. Sergecross73 msg me 18:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • And for what its worth to the AFD closer, the principal account in favor of a "keep" argument was just blocked again for making unsourced claims on a BLP, so its rather clear he doesn't understand the concepts at play here. Sergecross73 msg me 20:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hardly any secondary sources about the subject and I am unable to verify the claims of being grammy nominated. We do not just assume that someone has been nominated, we require evidence. I do not see the evidence here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:21, 8 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. czar 05:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neotenic Complex Syndrome

Neotenic Complex Syndrome (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)

Single line article linking to an example of this syndrome. Appears to be a newly minted term, nothing on Scholar, found a recent poster presentation using the term without any linkable information. Without formal published papers, seems to be WP:NEO at this point. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 08:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:10, 10 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. North America1000 11:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amber DeLuca

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

Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources Meatsgains (talk) 01:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not really sure which sports guideline is best to apply here because she seems a jack of all trades, but since she seems to be a master of none I don't see any of them being met. At the same time "Pennsylvania State armwrestling champion 2001" might be the most impressive title I have ever seen on Wiki. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Impressive if it could be verified :) Meatsgains (talk) 05:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiable or not, its a pretty great title.Thumb wrestling champ might be more impressive though... TonyBallioni (talk) 13:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 14:42, 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 no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination.) North America1000 03:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rupyal

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

The page belongs to Category:Jat clans, or one of its subcategories. All the pages of these categories lack the very basic notability guidelines. Failure WP:GNG. Must be discussed and deleted per WP:NOT. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:13, 5 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. (No prejudice against speedy renomination.) North America1000 03:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ranyal

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

The page belongs to Category:Jat clans, or one of its subcategories. All the pages of these categories lack the very basic notability guidelines. Failure WP:GNG. Must be discussed and deleted per WP:NOT. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:13, 5 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. (No prejudice against speedy renomination.) North America1000 03:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rachyal

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

The page belongs to Category:Jat clans, or one of its subcategories. All the pages of these categories lack the very basic notability guidelines. Failure WP:GNG. Must be discussed and deleted per WP:NOT. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:13, 5 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. czar 05:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ashlee Baracy

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

The only thing about Baracee that almost makes it to the level of notability is winning the Miss Michigan title. However winning Miss Michigan is not enough to make someone notable. Her breast cancer caregivers network is sourced to an article that only mentions her in passing, and a google search showed up no better sources. Her media career is a bunch of very local positions with local and PR coverage. None of this rises to the level of notability. The discussion back in 2010 bascially had 2 people vote keep on the argument that all winners of "major" state pageants are notable. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Furrer should go to show this is clearly not the view of current consensus. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 12:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:18, 5 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. MBisanz talk 01:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thunder (CMS)

AfDs for this article:
Thunder (CMS) (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 Drupal distribution. No reliable sources have been added since the first AfD, which was closed as no consensus. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 22:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:23, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Electrical Apparatus Service Association

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

promotional artile for the association. Refs are its own publications, and various notes. DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with DGG. It looks promotional and the refs don't establish independent notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  Nothing really to look at here.  International 80-year-old organization that both publishes a magazine and sponsors an annual conference...there is good reason to think that many readers will be interested in this Wikipedia article.  With this new article, other articles that reference the topic can now be Wikilinked.  Long list of references is found in the article without any attempt at an international search going back 80 years, and the topic is also covered by Bloomberg. 

    Nomination has no evidence of a problem that needs the attention of AfD volunteers.  The claim of "promotional" is a proof by assertion, and must be assumed to be a WP:IAR argument, not a reference to WP:PROMO.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:11, 9 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 redirect to Mike Coolbaugh. Don't usually close on 2 however participation is extremely low and relisting this won't gain any new !votes so am closing as redierct (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Texas League Mike Coolbaugh Memorial Coach of the Year Award

Texas League Mike Coolbaugh Memorial Coach of the Year Award (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 award is too far down in the weeds to have significant coverage required for WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:21, 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. Cerebellum (talk) 17:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Galen Giaccone

Galen Giaccone (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)

Giaccone is just plain not notable, being Miss Delaware is not enough to pass that threshold. The only link in the article itself that might be reliable is to the Special Olympics of Delaware, but it is a broken link and nothing about it suggests it is a substantial coverage. The news search showed 3 reliable source mentions, but they were all in a long listing of those who made it past the first round in the Miss American competition, nothing substantial. She is listed in Complex.com's 50 hottest Miss America contestants who didn't win, but nothing there suggests that is a reliable source. There is a press release from the office where she works as a dentist printed in a small Delaware paper, but even that is just a listing among multiple dentists. The University of Delaware when they put out a release about their program to encourage people from groups "underrepresented" in STEM careers to pursue them, listed her as one of 20 graduates of note back in 2011, when she seems to have still been in dental school. In a more general google search I was able to learn many details of her nine year courtship of her current husband, and exactly where they had their wedding and the reception, but nothing that suggested she is notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 14:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Top 15" runner up is a dubious claim to notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:30, 16 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. ~ Rob13Talk 03:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias Schlingensiepen

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

Delete. Minimally sourced WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as a non-winning candidate for office. As always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, but rather must be shown and sourced to have already passed a notability criterion for some other reason before becoming candidates -- but nothing here shows or sources that at all. Bearcat (talk) 01:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At first I thought this was one to cut, but as I clicked past the first couple of pages of a Google News search, I started to find a significant amount of regional and some national coverage on his campaign and events leading up to it. The Wall Street Journal article that I added was what first caught my eye. I believe that there is enough coverage to pass WP:GNG and even build a pretty darned good article on this subject.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to know which Google you were searching, because on my Google he gets just two pages of purely local campaign coverage and/or glancing namechecks of his existence in articles about other things, and there isn't even a third page of results to click past the second page to. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is crazy--it's the second time this has happened. I'm unable to repeat the search. Last night I clicked on the "news" link above and it gave me tons of stuff, including a WSJ article that I put in the article. There were more and I intended to return. Now I cannot find them. I'm confident it was the "news" link above and not any of the others. I am baffled.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible you searched without quotation marks the first time? If I do that, I do get additional hits where people whose first name is Tobias are sitting alongside distinct people whose last name is Schlingensiepen. (And I should also note that the WSJ reference is not an article about him in the news section of the WSJ, but a campaign-style biography of him in their "database of campaign-style biographies of every candidate in the entire country" section for the 2012 election. So it's just WP:ROUTINE coverage, not WP:GNG coverage.) Bearcat (talk) 14:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so because it took me to a WSJ article on the subject. But if it can't be repeated, the argument should be disregarded.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... the search is working again and yielding more results. I'll stay on keep for now but I won't be offended to be on the losing side of this one.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 07:51, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 17:29, 19 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jared & The Mill

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

Delete. Article about a band which essentially just states that they exist, makes no claim of notability that would actually satisfy WP:NMUSIC, and is sourced entirely to their own primary source website about themselves and to an AllMusic bio. As always, the existence of an AllMusic bio is not an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia in and of itself -- their inclusion criteria permit any musical act that has released a recording, while ours are quite a bit more restrictive. So AllMusic would be acceptable as one source amid a diversity of reliable sources, but it does not get a band into Wikipedia by itself if it's the article's only non-primary source. Bearcat (talk) 05:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is clear from the rationale above that the nominator judged notability solely from the contents of the article, but notability is determined by the coverage that exists, not what is cited. A WP:BEFORE search could have found coverage from multiple sources, including [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62]. --Michig (talk) 11:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep reliable sources found for the notability 87.114.101.178 (talk) 18:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete instead as not only are the current listed links in the article unconvincing, the ones above literally contain event listings or interviews, and while that may be common in news, it still shows the bareness of no actual independent and substantial news, therefore I would suggest at least Drafting until we have better substance. One note is the fact the WashingtonCityPaper is not only in itself a local event guide, but the sentences are only a few sentences and, as followed, the other links are noticeably simply interviews or event listings (the first one is an event listing, for starters, as are followed by every until the end "[Band] comes [locally]"), focused with exactly that. Therefore, to answer the IP's comment above of the bare "Reliable sources for notability" is not the case if they are simply contents of interviews and event listings, which in this matter, are not substance because they are (1) simply words by the subject themselves and (2) event listings for local places. SwisterTwister talk 04:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NPA, I specifically listed the concerns above and including the quoted information from those sources, hence I thoroughly analyzed this. SwisterTwister talk 03:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closer - WP:GNG or WP:BASIC if WP:NOT still applies, because WP:NOT is a non-negotiable policy that explicitly states unacceptable articles that are suggestive of being used as a webhost or a listing are not acceptable here and as I noted above, the listed quotes from those articles are literally mere interviews, none of it amounts to substance, especially since it's not independent. Once we no longer consider and apply WP:NOT, we're completely damned as an encyclopedia, and we simply become a social media page for every single WP:GARAGE and local band. SwisterTwister talk 03:59, 14 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. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harper and the Moths

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

Delete. Article, with some advertorial overtones, about a band with no strong claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC: the strongest claim being made here is airplay on just one radio station outside their home market, where NMUSIC requires a national network before airplay becomes the notability hook. And for sourcing, what we have is a mix of primary sources which cannot assist notability at all, and local newspapers which do not demonstrate that the band is getting noticed outside their own area — the only non-local sources here are that one radio station (and not even substantive content about the band, but a mere "vote in tonight's battle of the songs" poll which simply namechecks their existence) and a blog. This is not the kind of sourcing it takes to get a band into Wikipedia if you're going for NMUSIC #1 ("notable because media coverage exists") rather than any of the more specific followup criteria — I note that the original discussion did founder on the "media coverage exists" argument, but more than just local coverage is required before a band satisfies that NMUSIC criterion. Also conflict of interest, as the creator's username corresponds to the name of the band's keyboardist. Bearcat (talk) 05:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:28, 4 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. Sam Walton (talk) 10:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Holograf

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

Delete. Completely unsourced (and flagged as such since 2007!) article about a band, which makes no strong claim of notability that would pass WP:NMUSIC. Between the length of their career and the fact that most of the potential sources, if any exist, are likely to be in Romanian, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can improve it to a keepable standard, and no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this -- but articles are not entitled to a permanent exemption from ever having to be properly referenced. Bearcat (talk) 06:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: Please note that the article has been deleted between 2008 and September 2016 [63], until I asked for an undeletion request, so check a page's journal first before stating flagged as such since 2007!Ionutzmovie (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I had a look at the Romanian article for assertions of notability and WP:RS citations. What did I find? self-written sources, discogs, and some promotional interviews. Nothing which I'd call anything like an independent source. If even the local fans can't supply any Romanian WP:RS sources, I'm calling a WP:NMUSIC failure. Narky Blert (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Romanian Wiki is in a poor shape, Romanians simply won't write, they have other interests, that doesn't mean the band is not very well known in Romania. I'm an administrator there with over 70.000 edits and I know what I say. Ionutzmovie (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Excepting taking into acount the four big awards from 8th criteria from WP:MUSIC, the band's article has the potential to fulfill all of them. They really don't need to be promoted through promotional interviews, they are already well known in Romania and they don't depend on their Wikipedia entry. But of course, as I don't know bands from Bangladesh, that way I can't ask others to know every best band from each country.Ionutzmovie (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added references to the article. Razvan Socol (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I stated on the request for undeletion here. One of the most famous Romanian bands, nominated multiple times for Romanian Music Award pentru Best Group, Romanian Music Award pentru Best Song. Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media from Romania. Has had more than a hit on a national music chart in at least one medium-sized country. Has released two or more albums on the most important Romanian label before the '90, Electrecord and after the 90's Mediapro Music, Roton [64] Also mentioned in Music of Romania article.Ionutzmovie (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They also have the most broadcasted song at Romanian radio stations in the last five years [65], if that's not notable I don't know what is.Ionutzmovie (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The band is featured in End-Year Chart 2004 (Romania), End-Year Chart 2006 (Romania), and this is just after the year 2000, or the band has composed their hits before the 00's, and those charts are hard to find online.Ionutzmovie (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also featured on the following award pages:
The album Holografica was sold in 100.000 copies in the first two weeks and Pur și simplu was sold in over 250.000 copies. For a country under 20 million people which pirate almost everything, that's quite an achievment.Ionutzmovie (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I extended the article and I think that using the argument that the ro:wiki article is at stub level as a reason to delete this article cannot be taken into account as I stated above.Ionutzmovie (talk) 22:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ionutzmovie. Holograf passes WP:NBAND with flying colors, mainly criteria #2, #5 (Roton and MediaPro are some of the biggest labels in Romania and can be considered „some of the more important indie labels”), #10 (soundtrack of Orient Express (2004 film), in which lead singer Dan Bittman also starred; as well as the more recent, but less famous Ultimul zburător), and #12 (they are definitely on rotation at least at the 3 national-wide radio stations in Romania I listen to).- Andrei (talk) 10:08, 7 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. MBisanz talk 01:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Step

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

Delete. WP:TOOSOON article, with some advertorial undertones, about a band whose claims of notability are tied entirely to university student media, which WP:NMUSIC makes a special point of explicitly deprecating as a class of media outlets not able to bring the notability. It takes more than getting named a "hot pick" at student radio to get a band into Wikipedia. Also probable WP:COI, as the article was created by "Beatlestefano81" and the band's lead singer has the given name Stefano. Bearcat (talk) 07:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:15, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Idomoo

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

A typical promotional article. Just the press for startup but not for its significance. other references are merely mentioned nothing notable. need to much more than that to become an encyclopedia notable. This is not a directory for startups happens everyday and even get funded and even get few coverage by popular media. Funding, operations and selective awards mentioned as promotions. definitely influenced by the company officials. Light2021 (talk) 09:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete by all means as literally an advertisement not actually substantially contributed or changed by anyone else that wasn't an advertising-only account, and this is emphasized and symbolized by the sheer fact the information and sources are then only the company's own advertising or republished; there's nothing to sensibly suggest better if everything is blatant motivations of PR. SwisterTwister talk 21:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We have actually established a consensus here at AfD that TechCrunch and VentureBeat have notoriously accepted PR and passed them to be apparent news, and we have also established that they will literally advertise anything about the company, therefore there are some speculative things suggesting it's likely "pay-for news", something churnalism emulates exactly; to be specific all of those contents in those 2 "articles" only advertise the words and information the company wants to say about itself, therefore because we have to question as it is about the independent and substance concerns, and then also if it's literally paid advertising, we cannot accept it.
Also, as noted, the article itself entirely advertises the company as are the listed sources, the history itself shows the advertising and we cannot simply ignore that as if it never existed, because the advertising concerns here largely outweigh any apparent benefits. SwisterTwister talk 02:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you mean by "established a consensus here at AfD that [they] have notoriously accepted PR and passed them to be apparent news." I hate to assume but I believe you mean that you and others believe these publications do so. However, my search of WP:RSN found nothing indicating that they are not reliable sources. In fact, I found comments that they do fact checking which is one of the biggest criteria for a source to be considered reliable. Here is also the ethics statement of VentureBeat which says they do fact check.
So let's say they do have a habit of passing off PR as journalism. I am very family with the term churnalism but neither would apply here. Both of these pieces are written by staff writers (one a senior writer and the other is an editor at large). There is no indication on either article that it is promoted or paid for as VentureBeat clearly marks native ads as sponsored content as does TechCrunch as indicated from this tag. Some sources actually do a good job of reporting news. That is why you have to look into these deeper. You also never said anything about Reuters.
Finally, when you state "the article itself entirely advertises the company as are the listed sources" it takes away from the credibility of your argument. Looking at the article, I agree that everything from the "Overview" section down needs to be removed or rewritten. You can easily remove that with one click. However, I am not sure how the introduction paragraph and the history section is advertising the company. Stating facts is simply stating facts. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And after removing everything We are left with one or two sentense entry on Encylopedia. Is that really a Wikipedia Content. It makes it Directory or PR host which merely such article even created. There is seriously nothing to write about such article on Wikipedia except a paragraph. If we go by GNC for one article, that might be covered by significant media. Wikipedia becomes News distribution network. If it is already covered there. Why you need to write same on an article just passing GNC? Where are the sustainable coverage? as is the case these days. Such articles and references are being misused to build Wikipedia Reputation by such companies. Eg.: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-04-08/Op-ed

And definitely as being Commercial media channel, publishing 1 articles for such company does not harm, as clearly influenced by company. because after that one article. The company disappear from press. It is not my guidelines as many think I am creating my own. It is by Wikipedia. News must be sustainable not just once. VentureBeat ethics written on their own website does not make it any better. Techcrunch and venture beat do publish as they are online media like many others, they need lots to publish "I mean every media need lots and lots to publish in media". being encyclopedic notable we need to do more. One Paragraph? Light2021 (talk) 05:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for sounding rude, @Ligh2021: but your writing is very illegible. I am unsure of much of what you are saying so I don't know how to respond. It sounds like you are unhappy with the notability guidelines which I completely understand. If that is the case, this is something you need to address there, not through AfD. You can nominate as many articles as you want for deletion but it will not change the guidelines for WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Unfortunately I think quite a few - not all as some have been good and I even supported your recommendation on those - of your mass deletion recommendations fall under WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. But I am only one opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Every one has different ways of knowing and understanding things (I have read them though). Just doing my part what I understand the best. I welcome your thoughts and your contributions. thanks :) Light2021 (talk) 05:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If that satisfies my assessment, few articles to read:

Light2021 (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Yes, they simply state facts about the company, and none of that actually leads to any notability; as for the AfD consensus, we have established here, simply look at any recent company AfD closed as Delete, and you'll see we have explicitly seen obviously advertising articles and that's because those 2 websites clearly cater to anyone of the investing and client field who may be interested, therefore we cannot take those as being assuredly independent and not PR-focused; if this was NYT, that may be a different story, but those websites such as TechCrunch and VentureBeat clearly are PR-based, exactly how Forbes is now massively filled with PR advertising articles from either the businesspeople themselves or "special day contributor" (which essentially means it could be anyone from a company employee to a paid PR agent).

Therefore, actually stating that a lot of this will need removal but that the mere fact sections such as overview and history stay, none of that actually establishes notability. To focus again with such sources like the ones above, we have explicitly stated before and found that when an article largely states only what the company itself would know such as its business plans and thoughts and the specific numbers of money it was either paid or given itself, that shows it's clearly PR advertising, essentially a republished PR piece for churnalism; and that's why, because such websites are not focusing with actual news, if the company simply states everything about its own advertising instead.

Once we start compromising with such blatant advertisements, simply because of an apparent "news article" with overspecifics about the company, we start damaging ourselves by then being vulnerable to "Hey, they accepted PR simply because it was masked by another website hosting it!"; for such cases, we have excellent pages such as WP:ADVERTISING, WP:DEL14 and WP:NOT (and WP:IAR at best for still questionable cases). SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 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. Redirects may be created at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Social microcosm

Social microcosm (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)

Its only sources are dictionaries. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:12, 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. Uncontested.  Sandstein  14:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

X-Tel 7500

X-Tel 7500 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:30, 4 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. Uncontested.  Sandstein  14:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

X-Tel 9500

X-Tel 9500 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:31, 4 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. Sufficient consensus by established editors. The only delete vote other than nominator is more a comment on others' votes than on the subject. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 07:55, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tulu Nadu

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

This article is quite controversial as Tulu Nadu is not a recognized region by Karnataka. Reference sources may be self published and cannot be verified. Also I do not see the notability criteria being met and as to why it should be on Wikipedia. PageImp (talk) 19:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep

This page should not be deleted. Why?
1. Can article survive on Wiki for more than 12 years if it didn't meet notability criteria, and suddenly someone decides it lacks notability, it baffled me?
2. And the region which has it's own language, culture, history how can someone say it doesn't meet notability criteria?.
2. Is not being "official region" a criteria to consider for deletion on Wikipedia?
3. Or Is not being "recognized" makes it controversial?
4. Is all the articles on wiki are about "recognized" things? So there can not exist an article related to region which is not recognized? Is Tibet a recognized country?
(talk to Me)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One of the "keep" !votes was made by an IP, and the other looks like a typical fake !vote made by a fanboy. Delete. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 01:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to me we're looking for reliable sources which show that this place is notable. Well, it is referred to as a place in The Hindu, The Times of India, The Economist etc. I suspect that there is a lot more to find in published books, scholarly papers etc. The fact that it is controversial is not a reason to delete. JMWt (talk) 11:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "Tulu Nadu" itself seems like a notable historic and linguistic region, but this page cites mostly dead links and pages that reference aspects of the regions which are not specific to "Tulu Nadu" but are rather just characteristics of the constituent regions. While the page looks good and has lots of citations, I wish the sources were better and there was less material based on the underlying regions and more about "Tulu Nadu".Smmurphy(Talk) 15:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Gets a huge number of hits in reliable sources. The current poor state of an article is not a valid reason for deletion. Zerotalk 05:30, 5 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) 12:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Mugoya

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

Delete. Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a media personality and businessman, which just states that he exists and contains no actual claim as to why his existence is encyclopedic. Of the sources being cited, one is a blurb about how good he looks in one of his clothing company's own suits, which reads far more like a fashion blog entry than an actual news story, and the other is just a photograph of him graduating from school -- so neither of them contribute to building a WP:GNG claim, because even the one that has some actual content doesn't have substantive content. As always, neither businesspeople nor television personalities get an automatic inclusion freebie just because they exist; reliable sourcing, supporting a proper claim of notability, must be present for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:07, 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  14:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lehren

Lehren (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 here. The usual own web-site links plus several press releases about take overs, and peripheral mentions in articles about other things. Nothing here that adds up to notability.  Velella  Velella Talk   22:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Not sure on notability, but I am adding some sources where I can find them. It's an Indian company, so I am guessing that English web searches may not be the best way of finding references. Basil Monster 22:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basil Monster (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - Upon further research, this is a broadcast television station (see here : www.india-forums.com/tellybuzz/news-releases/2070-lehren-india-first-24x7-showbiz-news-and-entertainment-channel.htm). Under Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Broadcast_media, a television station that serves Mumbai, India would count as a television station serving a major regional market. The quote of interest would be: "The vast majority of over-the-air television stations serve a large regional market, often covering millions of households ... Because of the public interest served, most television stations that produce original content should be presumed notable for Wikipedia purposes." Sources are sparse here, but notability protocols would seem to indicate that Lehren is notable. It should, I think, be transitioned to a page about the station possibly to clarify this. Wikipedia could also transition this to talk about the Lehren nationally broadcast television show from the 1990s. That would qualify under the same policy. Basil Monster 22:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basil Monster
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:32, 4 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. WP:SOFTDELETEish given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Schambeau

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

Her winning the Miss DC title only gets coverage as far as I can tell from her hometown papers in Flordia, not even from the DC press. The rest of her life gets virtually no coverage. Her marriage to John Patterson gets very minor coverage, but more because he is notable than anything else. There is no justification for a stand alone article on her. John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 12:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:32, 4 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) 12:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Crain

Amy Crain (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)

Crain was Miss Arkansas in 2014. Not only is that about all we know about her that is notable, that is almost all we know about her at all. The coverage is all from either hometown media or from her college paper. This leads to flash in the pan coverage, but nothing lasting that rises above the level of one event. John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 12:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:05, 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) 12:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Loren McDaniel

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

This article is decpetive because it has a very well developed citation body, but lots of weak and reliable citations do not overcome the problems the article has. McDaniel is not notable for anything past being Miss Arkansas, and that alone is not enough to justify an article. The citations are either to press releases and blogs of the competitions, to passing mention in articles about other people winning Miss Arkansas, or to her college paper or home town media. None of this is enough to establish notability for a beauty pageant contestant. My search for additional sources turned up nothing that would add towards passing the general notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Miss Spirit of Arkansas 2014 or Miss Arkansas is enough to present notability. Not one of the 21 references present anything other than Miss Arkansas. The two references to Miss America, if they were not dead links, would be primary, ----and---- she placed in the top 15. The only actual attempt at notability would be Miss Arkansas so fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E. --- Otr500 (talk) 10:02, 29 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:05, 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 redirect to Munna Bhai (film series). Tito Dutta (talk) 12:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Munna Bhai Chale Amrika

Munna Bhai Chale Amrika (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 is non-existent film. I was unable to find anything in the searches. No sources at all. The release date 29 June 2022 (as mentioned in the article) is way too long. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It says part 4 in he article, but the title of the article "Munna Bhai Chale Amrika" is perhaps a misspelling of the upcoming third part which seems to have the name: Munna Bhai Chale Amerika (see here or here) so maybe it is a misspelling? There is also a trailer for the third installment of this series on youtube. Coverage of the third part is also not very convincing though, as it is scheduled for 2017 or 2018. Dead Mary (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect - an IP editor brought this article out of a redirect, and created it with the AfD template. So he's nominating it for deletion? The user has demonstrated questionable judgment across a number of articles, and has brought numerous redirects back into articles prematurely and in several cases contravening WP:NFF. If this article doesn't get deleted it should be redirected, because he has not demonstrated that principal photography has begun. He's made many sloppy mistakes, so it's also possible he is recreating an existing article under an incorrectly spelled title. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:08, 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) 12:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kristen Glover

Kristen Glover (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)

Glover's one claim to fame is being Miss Arkansas, and that by itself is not enough to establish notability. The coverage is all eiter sources created by Miss America and its affiliates, extremely local coverage, press releases from the university she attended, or passing mention in coverage about the Miss America competition itself. Nothing that comes close to the level of notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Lack of notability. Winning one event, Miss Arkansas, does not provide enough notability for a stand-alone article, and all the references but one are only about that. The one reference, concerning Miss America, shows her as a finalist with 7 other girls. Nothing "special" about that. Otr500 (talk) 04:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 12:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:04, 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. Eventual merging to Port of Mongla or to other targets can be always discussed in the article's talk page, obviously. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 07:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mongla Export Processing Zone

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

No indication of significance. Poorly written article that appears to be an attempt to create a webpage for the organization in question. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:04, 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 redirect to Castle Rotondo#Origin of the name. Consensus was to merge with Castle Rotondo but since the same text was already present in that section oof target page, redirect performed instead of merge.(non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 14:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

House of Rotondo

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

No indication of WP:GNG. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing false, or invalid about this — Preceding unsigned comment added by ajmemeni (talk • contribs) 01:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 4 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_October_28&oldid=746680189"