Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 July 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 14 July	16 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:TomStar81 per WP:G4, "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yui Satonaka

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

Has only appeared in two television shows ([1]) and one film ([2]). Her sole significant role was in Kamen Rider Kabuto and the movie made from that, and there are some features on her for that (such as this, from the station that broadcast it), but WP:NACTOR demands significant roles in multiple shows and movies, which she does not have. Especially since her career was short, I cannot find the coverage to pass WP:GNG. Apparently was deleted in 2010, but given the stub we have, I doubt any new information has been added to make it pass notability requirements. Michitaro (talk) 23:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - Now that I see it has been deleted before -- and that it is unlikely any new information has been added -- I will just go with a speedy delete nomination. I will revive it, however, if anyone rejects the speedy delete nomination. Michitaro (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: The version deleted contained essentially the same information from the original copy, but it was presented differently. In the unlikely event that this goes to deletion review, I wanted that fact to be states here for all to see. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Car negotiation

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

Reads like an essay and/or a how-to guide. It's poorly referenced, it's been tagged with various issues for 3-4 years, and although the topic is probably notable, the article itself is bad enough that you may as well start again. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. The idea of such an article is not half bad, but it currently is just a mess. It would have to be started at something like Automotive price negotiation or redirected to Automobile salesperson. The whole set of related articles are in very poor shape. Perhaps an expert editor is needed. Bearian (talk) 13:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT as above. PianoDan (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pyaar vs Khap Panchayat

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

No evidence of notability. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 23:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 23:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 23:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Soft delete as the film has only recently been released and lack of decent coverage means the article is Too Soon. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable, not likely to be notable. Esquivalience ^t 13:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — almost the precise definition of it in fact. It is, as always, open to users to merge or redirect the article, either in line with WP:BB or a discussion on a relevant talk page. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SHINE Medical Technologies

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

Despite a whole slew of references, this organisation is vapourware. It has produced no products, has no facilities, and the entire article confirms this. It might, if it is ever approved, begin some sort of production in 2018. Or it might not. WP:NOTCRYSTAL applies to this vapourware peddler. Fiddle Faddle 22:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep←. The company has gotten a considerable amount of press, as you can see from the references, and it has received commitments for well over $100 million in financing. It has also signed long-term supply agreements with major entities. It is true that production is not scheduled to begin until 2018, but it is expected to be the only American manufacturer, producing 1/4 of the world's supply, of these radioisotopes that are essential for surgery. So, I think that it is notable. BTW, anyone here who is familiar with initiating AfD's, check out this list that contains totally trivial information: Australia 2020 Summit participants. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is the most unusual use of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS in a deletion discussion that I have seen for some time. If you think that list needs nomination for deletion please do it. No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy.

No, your assumption is completely wrong. I never used such an argument. The two articles are unrelated and not similar in any way. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commitments are just that, commitments. But it requires licencing and much else before it is anything other than vapourware. Even jovial comments on its talk page can be very easily interpreted to show this, and that is by supporters of moving the then Draft: article to main namespace. Fiddle Faddle 23:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the company is notable given the shortage of Mo-99 and their efforts / research to address that shortage. These efforts have been covered in the national publication Nature magazine and a cover story from Nuclear News (PDF), the magazine of the American Nuclear Society. At least 20+ million dollars in Federal funding has been given to them for development as well.[3] They are also supported by several US National Nuclear Research facilities as cited in the article. There is routine coverage, several articles each year, in the Wisconsin State Journal, second largest circulation newspaper in Wisconsin and the company has also been covered several times by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, largest newspaper in Wisconsin. Even if the facility is never constructed, I think the notability is in the process they developed. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I would further add to my previous response that the company does have a facility in Monona, Wisconsin, contrary to the nomination statement. It has produced a full-scale demonstration particle accelerator at that facility.[4] Since they are not licensed by the NRC, they can not create a reaction at this point, but Argonne National Lab demonstrated the SHINE's process for "production, separation and purification of molybdenum-99" and "confirms [the] new commercial method for producing medical isotope".[5] --Dual Freq (talk) 14:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Dual Freq (talk) 01:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy. "SHINE was in the process of . . . " and "The company hopes to . . ." indicate that this article is probably too soon (if it ever is notable).--Rpclod (talk) 03:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have had some time to sample check the references, of which there appear to be a great number. Of the five that I sample checked, and I have only sample checked so far, 100% are regurgitated press releases and PR material, something those of us who have spent a lifetime in marketing can recognise at 50 paces. This smacks of WP:BOMBARD. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS. Doubtless there will be some. ~~If I get the time I will do an analysis of the references, but analysing all 27 will just be busywork~~. This has escaped from the Draft: namespace approximately three years too early. There looks to be a great PR campaign about who has signed what with them, but this is not significant nor independent coverage. Fiddle Faddle 07:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my analysis of the references in this permalinked version:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Non-Power-Nuclear-Applications/Radioisotopes/Radioisotopes-in-Medicine/ is a single paragraph, hardly significant coverage. Borderline, tending to fail
http://host.madison.com/business/environmental-report-supports-shine-medical-s-plan-to-build-radioisotope/article_fabdf313-fe5a-529c-a6c4-b025f25aaeee.html Pass
http://medicalphysicsweb.org/cws/article/research/59368 Pass
http://www.nature.com/news/radioisotopes-the-medical-testing-crisis-1.14325 Pass
http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2012/05/08/morgridge-institute-shine-win-206m.html PR material, Fail
http://www.lanl.gov/discover/news-release-archive/2013/May/05.13-domestic-production-of-medical-isotope-mo99.php Press release. Fail
http://www.anl.gov/articles/argonne-confirms-new-commercial-method-producing-medical-isotope Press release. Fail
http://www.engr.wisc.edu/news/archive/2014/Oct10-SHINE-funding-milestone.html Press release. Fail
http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=7&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=gregory&s2=piefer&OS=gregory+AND+piefer&RS=gregory+AND+piefer It’s a patent. Anyone can take out a patent. Patents are not references. Fail
http://mo99.ne.anl.gov/2011/pdfs/Mo99%202011%20Web%20Papers/S11-P2_Chemerisov-Paper.pdf interesting paper on SHINE. Needs verification of peer reviewed status. Jury is out on this one
http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/1107941 abstract. http://permalink.lanl.gov/object/tr?what=info:lanl-repo/lareport/LA-UR-13-28967 ought to be the reference. Needs verification of peer reviewed status. Jury is out on this one
http://www.dotmed.com/news/story/24000?p_begin=0 Press release. Fail
http://www.dotmed.com/news/story/23500 comes form PR NEWSWIRE! Good grief. Fail
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/deerfield-management-signs-125-million-200500957.html looks ok until you look at the “BUSINESSWIRE” heading. Press Release. Fail
http://host.madison.com/business/shine-signs-contract-with-lantheus-medical-imaging/article_812abe76-f5c3-58e4-92ef-371a1b67408e.html Press release. Fail
http://www.gazettextra.com/news/2012/jan/25/janesville-working-medical-isotope-maker-incentive/ Press release. Fail
~~http://www.gazettextra.com/news/2012/jan/25/janesville-working-medical-isotope-maker-incentive/~~ http://www.ans.org/pubs/magazines/download/a_954 three paragraphs on page 5 are a borderline passing mention. Borderline
The British Pharmacopoeia Commission (2015). British Pharmacopoeia. United Kingdom: TSO Publishers. p. 712. ISBN 978-0-11-322987-1 unable to check, but the text implies that this is not ‘’about SHINE’’, merely about a standard. Probable fail
http://www.cins.ca/docs/panrep-rapexp-eng.pdf SHINE is not mentioned. This is about the generic product set. Fail
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111shrg55468/html/CHRG-111shrg55468.htm SHINE not mentioned. Fail
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1435/ML14356A494.pdf document submitted by SHINE to a committee. SHINE originating documents are a primary source. Fail
http://www.jsonline.com/business/shine-medical-technologies-receives-150000-national-science-foundation-grant-b99529497z1-310968511.html Press release. Fail
http://www.ibmadison.com/In-Business-Madison/August-2012/SHINE-brings-a-light-of-hope-to-cancer-and-heart-patients/ seems to be an interview with one of the principals, thus a primary source. Fail
https://www.iaea.org/About/Policy/GC/GC54/GC54InfDocuments/English/gc54inf-3-att7_en.pdf SHINE is not mentioned. Fail
http://www.ro-journal.com/content/7/1/30 SHINE is not mentioned. Fail
http://www.radiochemistry.org/nuclearmedicine/radioisotopes/ex_iso_medicine.htm SHINE is not mentioned. Fail
http://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/xenon-xe-133-inhalation-route/description/drg-20075195 SHINE is not mentioned. Fail

From this analysis it follows that the majority of the asserted facts in this article are not supported by references that meet Wikipedia’s needs. As it stands this should never have escaped into main namespace. The analysis confirms the desire of a self identified COI editor (my memory says they identified themselves as an intern at SHINE, and this is likely confirmed by the {{connected contributor}} banner on the talk page) to fulfil a job requirement and to get an article published. This is a piece of brochureware supported by WP:BOMBARD.

On the article talk page editors wonder why folk have not joined in with their conversation about referencing. The answer is that this was a WP:AFC Draft and the reviews take care of this. Fiddle Faddle 08:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard not to feel sandbagged since you didn't raise these concerns during a conversation you were obviously watching, since you AfD'd it inside of 90 minutes after it entered main space. You also missed the cover story from Nuclear News (PDF), the magazine of the American Nuclear Society that mentions the company and their process. Several of the items you mentioned above are not SHINE press releases, they are from UW-Madison, Los Alamos and Argonne national labs, not written by SHINE. These are major third parties that have partnered with the company. The supply agreements are also written by the other party, GE Healthcare, Lantheus and Deerfield Mgmt, not SHINE. --Dual Freq (talk) 11:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was not I who determined that this was fit for main namespace and used the Articles for Creation Helper Script to promote it there, despite its being totally unready to migrate. We require the correct level of assessment of references by reviewers before they take the decision to promote an article. One of the major things reviewers must look for is that a draft should have a 60% chance of surviving an immediate deletion discussion. Some lower that to 50%. You may choose to feel sandbagged if you so desire, but WP:BURDEN was on the contributing editor to produce correct referencing, and, to a great extent, upon you as the accepting reviewer.. I see this article in this state as having less than even the 50%. It should have remained as a draft and been reviewed properly. It was not. Now it is equal with all other articles here and will sink or swim according to this discussion and others like it. Fiddle Faddle 12:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by the decision to move it, but regardless of your comment above, it would have been a common courtesy for you to have mentioned in the discussion that you intended to AFD it 90 minutes after it was moved. There are several legitimate sources and third party items you are simply dismissing. In the last 9 years of editing, I've seen much worse than this article at it's current stage. It may not be the best, but the article subject does exist and it's activities are routinely mentioned in regional media. --Dual Freq (talk) 00:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment no. 10 is a technical report, not peer-reviews but subjected to agency review before being published. No 11 is a conference presentation, also not peer reviewed, but anything out of LANL will have ben reviewed internally and can be assumed accurate. They prove that whatever the papers say was indeed done. DGG ( talk ) 12:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Technetium-99m. Normally, no matter how promising the technology , a company producing a new product is not notable until it has produced the product, or at least licensing is completed. The best explanation of this is in the reference just supplied from Nuclear News. I don't see how the peer-reviewed nature of the references is relevant one way or the other. DGG ( talk ) 12:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Good afternoon, I am going over all the comments here, but would like to note this regarding references #10 - the national labs are the most credible research facilities in the US.^[1] They are a non-biased institutions that is backed by the US government. Also another question, regarding reference number 14: I was instructed during one review that I could not use Deerfield as a "reference" because it was promoting their company. Thank you for the comments, they are very helpful! -- User:PattiMoly99 16 July 2015

References

^ "About the National Labs". Energy.gov. Retrieved 16 July 2015.

There is nothing wrong with number 14. Even if Yahoo Finance published the press release without changes, it would be OK under WP:SELFPUB, as it is used only to support the claim that the agreement was made. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on finding the sources for anything that appears to be a press release prior to July of 2012 - before my position as Executive Assistant. Hoping to have finished by Wednesday of next week. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you and have a nice weekend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PattiMoly99 PattiMoly99 (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC) (talk • contribs) 20:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DualFreq and others. Omnedon (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the borderline of soon becoming notable. The attempt to get the article first is promotional, which is the reason why someone else whould write the article when it becomes notable, and why I do not recommend moving it to draft space. DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:COI on the article talk page. Thank you, PattiMoly99 (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, revisit in 2018 There are enough sources to establish the company's technology as notable. There should be a place for that on a page for the most relevant isotopes or processes. The business deals and plans of are all too WP:CRYSTALBALL for an independent article at this time. Rhoark (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All the editors seem to agree that it has had widespread coverage, so that means it is notable. The Crystal Ball objection is misguided. It is used when someone claims a topic will receive widespread coverage in the future. We have an article about SETI now for example, we do not need to wait until they find something first. TFD (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional and premature. Coretheapple (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge into Technetium-99m or other suitable target. - This particular company may fail in its venture, but the impending technetium shortage is real and is very important. For a paper that reviews more than one idea for making up the shortfall see this Nature article from 2013. It mentions five proposals including SHINE. A related topic of interest is the American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2011 (signed into law on 2 January 2013), per this link. That article states there was an actual disruption of medical procedures in 2009-2010 due to the shortage. If somehow the effort of merging the articles would be too great I don't see much problem with retaining the current article, which is not excessively promotional. The lead is OK, and the second paragraph talks about where they are with respect to milestones. Even if the whole company is just the N+1st flaky technology that may never succeed, this article is bare minimum coverage and doesn't promise the moon. EdJohnston (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the edits performed in this gross diff I can now see that sufficient notability has been established for me to withdraw my nomination, and, further, to opine Keep in the discussion. My withdrawal should not stop the discussion from running to term since I am simply one person with one opinion. I am basing my mind change on the fact that I can now see that it passes WP:GNG on the basis that notability is asserted and it either is referenced or is capable of being referenced. Fiddle Faddle 19:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
merge into Technetium#Fission_product_for_commercial_use, and include discussion of other startups funded to fill the gap in supply. We can create an article on this company once it becomes operational. per DGG above. Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per DGG's comment. This is a WP:TOOSOON. Guy (Help!) 10:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per DGG - if this company meets the notability criteria in the future, an article can always be created at that time, but at the moment it is too soon/ PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just finished a pretty much complete re-write of the article. There's certainly sufficient 3rd party support and relevance within the medical isotope production economy to support retention of the article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits made the company seem too much like they already are in production; the edits failed to take into account that this company may never get off the ground. Which is also why many of us have said "not yet." Jytdog (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made it quite clear (except for one mistaken phrase in the opening which you fixed) that they are not producing anything yet and that all their funding is from VC or government with no revenue stream yet. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, looks like the company is right on the borderline of notability, but right now it is still in WP:CRYSTALBALL country. I'd allow it to be put into user draft space (userfied). Ghostwheel ʘ 02:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, oppose merge per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Ceyockey (talk · contribs)'s rewrite clearly demonstrates that the subject is notable for receiving detailed coverage in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and Wisconsin State Journal. I oppose a merge because information about the company will be lost in a merge to Technetium#Fission product for commercial use.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow SHINE Medical Technologies to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ceyockey, I hope this is allowed, but it wasn't the Netherlands that was idle for sometime that caused such a shortage in the U.S.; It was the NRU reactor in Canada. Here is the reference ^[1]. Also, we are not a "medical" business, more of a pharmaceutical - I hope I didn't put the "medical" category on there. Thank you for your help!!!

References

^ "Mo-99 Shortage" (PDF).

Delete as a non-notable vapourware software, and for having an article too soon for notability to be established. Aerospeed (Talk) 12:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The company does not plan to produce any software that I am aware of and the article makes no mention of software. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake - to the closing admin, please disregard my previous comment. (I was too hasty to call this software when I saw the word "vapourware"...) Aerospeed (Talk) 02:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Aerospeed: For clarity, please strike though that which is to be disregarded. It is now ambiguous rather than simply incorrect. Fiddle Faddle 06:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Without particulars as to which sources are reliable and what it is that they can verify, and whether something should be merged or not, I can only conclude that the discussion supports deletion. Drmies (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Search engine optimization methods

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

This article has mostly bogus references, essentially spam links to various sites, essentially a fork from the main article Search engine optimization which is where such content (SEO methods) belongs and where it can be adequately watched. Essentially, this content fork is an advertisement for SEO companies and consultants. Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree 100% with the nomination. It's a spam magnet, mostly original research, and plainly at odds with WP:NOTMANUAL.- Mr X 21:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - (1) Clean out the cruft. (2) Determine whether to merge the remains, or leave the as a stand alone article. It is not the case that all the references are bad and that all the content is bad. At least half of the sources are reliable. Jehochman ^Talk 22:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please identify the sources you see as WP:RS, and please address the question of why there should be two separate articles -- Search engine optimization and Search engine optimization methods? Clearly an article on SEO should include discussion of methods, and the SEO article is much better watched, unlike this one which is a magnet for WP:REFSPAM.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into Search Engine Optimization. No reason for two articles.--Rpclod (talk) 03:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter McGlynn

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

Recreation of article that was deleted via PROD. Article still fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While "famous" for one event (shoving a referee during a match in 2012) which was covered by major outlets in Deadspin, USA Today, Yahoo! Sports, and Santa Barbara Independent among others, McGlynn has done enough to warrant an article in my opinion. He fails WP:NFOOTBALL by letter of the law, but still plays in the top tier of Ireland and was previously signed to the first team of a fully professional club. For me, he passes WP:GNG from his previous event in addition to additional coverage picked up along his career in Drogheda/Irish Independent and Irish Sun and the like. GauchoDude (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL criteria and even if one event qualified for notability (but it doesn't), that event isn't even referenced in the article.--Rpclod (talk) 04:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. I have the following issues with the keep comments to date:

The sources above about shoving a referee do not amount to significant, reliable coverage per GNG as essentially a single event, plus his actions aren't really that rare.
Additional comments about him playing in a countries top teir are also not relevant, we don't have articles on all players in the Cook Islands Round Cup simply because it is the top tier, like the League of Ireland it is not a fully professional league.
The fact that he was signed by a team in a fully professional league is also not relevant, he has never played for them in a competitive fixture involving two teams from FPLs. Many players, especially young players are signed by big clubs in the hope that they will develop, never do and never make an appearance before falling out of the fully professional world. this is specifically why we have WP:NFOOTY to avoid the creation of non-notable articles.
Drogheda/Irish Independent is a brief interview as a result of a transfer from a regional newspaper. The general consensus is that transfer reports constitute routine coverage and as this interview would probably not have taken place had he not recently signed for the club (and I note this interview took place before he even played a competitive game) I don't think it amounts to significant coverage.
Irish Sun is behind a paywall so it is difficult to see how significant the voerage is. However, from the little available which says EARLIEST FOOTBALL MEMORY? MY first training session with it seems like a brief quick fire Q&A session rather than much in depth. I would need to see sourced prose citing this source in the article to accept this could contribute to GNG.

Either way, the fundamental point here is that this is a footballer who has played only 30 league games in the last 5 years according to the article. It is impossible to see how he could be notable as a result of this alone. Fenix down (talk) 07:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG, WP:NFOOTBALL, and WP:BLP1E. Giant Snowman 17:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There are claims made that the position is in itself notable, and would thus, I suppose confer notability on the officeholder, but these claims are not agreed on or indisputably proven. No evidence is provided that the subject herself is notable by our standards for biographies. Drmies (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swati Maliwal

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

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

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

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

Only claim to notability is as chair of the Delhi Commission for Women, a state/municipal-level agency. This doesn't satisfy our notability standards, see WP:POLITICIAN. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of

Delete This page was created a week ago in anticipation of her appointment to Delhi Commission for Women. She hardly qualifies as a "notable" personality. sshekhr — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.136.28.147 (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 04:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Chair for Delhi Commision for Women does not satisfy notability standards of wikipedia. There are 29 states and 7 Union Territories in India. Each one is supposed to have a Commission for Women. Neither of the States' Commisions find their way to wikipedia. There is no article for Delhi Commission for Women, nor do the any of the previous chairpersons have an article dedicated on them. A person being a subject discussed in news just because they have been appointed as Chairperson of DCW, and no other apparant contribution does not require a wikipedia entry.Sulabhvarshney (talk) 05:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am writing my comments just because I was desperately looking on internet to know more about her. She is the youngest chief of Delhi Commission of Women. She seems to have very dynamic nature and a well deserving candidate for extremely qualifying constitutional posts in India. Since she is a fresh face in public life, and she has been appointed with a big hope to work on the women security in Delhi, many readers like me want to know more about her work. Wikipedia could be a reliable place we would like to read about her past work and future updates. She is also adviser to the Chief Minister of Delhi Mr. Arvind Kejriwal (one of the most highlighted politician in India)

Comment If you were deperately looking for her on the internet for her past work and did not find much, it verifies the claim of lack of notability. If you found some verifiable references for her past work please help update the article. Also, if you say she is a fresh face, how is she notable according to WP:BIO? 116.203.75.96 (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Delhi commission for women is not a municipal-level agency. It is an autonomous state level body created by amending the constitution of India in 1994. Saying "This doesn't satisfy our notability standards" seems amusing to me. Wikipedia does not belong to a person, it is a community driven project and saying "our" standards is just amusing, standards are are subjective to the country they belong. Notability depends on the country of the subject and in this case, it must be an important position that it required indian constitution amendment and is all over the news from last 24 hours. A quick google search of the subject fetches 37k+ search results and 5k+ news results as of today https://www.google.co.in/search?q=swati+maliwal and it's just few hours since she is announced the new appointee. Moreover, this article is not about the chair of Delhi commission for women, this is about Swati Maliwal who was Advisor to Chief minister of Delhi before this assignment and has a strong background of activism.--Dadiji (talk) 08:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Dadiji (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment Delhi Commision for Women was not created by amending the Constitution of India. It was passed by a simple majority by Legislative Assembly of National Capital Territory of Delhi in 1994 [6] just like any other Legislation required to form any other Statutory body by any other State or Union Territory of India.

Wikipedia standards for notability for biographies are defined here WP:BIO. Please read. Also a Google search (or any other search for that matter) for any person in news for the reason of appointment to a government office is likely to fetch thousands of results. There are hundreds of newspapers and thousands of blogs reporting an event at the same time. Just beacause a person has been appointed to a Government Office, does not ensure WP:BIO.

In fact it is listed as Invalid Criteria WP:INVALIDBIO

Sulabhvarshney (talk) 08:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I hope you realize that passing a bill in the assembly/parliament introducing a new act in the constitution is called amending the constitution. Every state has it's own set of rules called state constitution. If an assembly/parliament passes a bill introducing new act (DCW act in this case), the constitution gets amended. There is no point in debating nonsense in this voting. Let the vote finish, even if you don't agree with others' comments, you don't have to reply to each and every vote that you don't agree with.--Dadiji (talk) 14:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please read Amendment of the Constitution of India , Act of Parliament, to understand the difference. In India, States do not have a separate Constitution. Passing a law in Legislative assembly does not amend Constitution of India.

This being a deletion discussion entry, it is imperative to discuss if page fulfils WP:BIO Sulabhvarshney (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is easily sourcable and can be improved. --Amanrajveer (talk) 08:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Search Engine hits is an Invalid Criteria WP:INVALIDBIO

Comment Please read WP:INVALIDBIO--Amanrajveer (talk) 09:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Quoting "Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (e.g., Google hits or Alexa ranking)" Sulabhvarshney (talk) 10:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Amanrajveer (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

Delete Under Wikipedia's neutral point of view (NPOV) policy, articles must present differing viewpoints on the subject matter fairly, proportionately, and without bias. Articles should include both positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources, without giving undue weight to particular viewpoints, either negative or positive. The policy of verifiability requires attributing all viewpoints to reliable, published sources, with appropriate citations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criticism. This page of Swati Maliwal and earlier Swati JaiHind was started by her party supporters in anticipation of this DCW appointment since July 5, 2015. Swati JaiHind got deleted due to BLP issues, then this page Swati Maliwal was created, which was also deleted. Again this page was created yesterday. If this is not PR exercise through Wikipedia what is? Swati supporters are deleting the controversies, which is against wiki norms. This only proves that some people are trying to use wikipedia for personal promotion. This article is a fit candidate for speedy deletion unless all sections of views are accomodated.182.66.9.149 (talk) 11:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The page looks under construction and can improve over time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.137.167 (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The criteria for deltion seems stupid. Delete because not notable and delete because there are x no of states in India ... and so on are not valid. The article satisfies GNG in terms of sources. Saying this person is not notable is akin to saying, Let's delete the article about the Sheriff of Mumbai because the Sheriff is a figurehead. Please provide a valid, POLICY driven reason to delete. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per norms |abp news |YahooNews TY of ^Walk 17:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage of her is not significant, the multiple ghits and whatever are essentially for being appointed to this role (not about her) and the associated accusations of nepotism. That doesn't make her notable. The event perhaps merits a mention in the article in one of Aam Aadmi Party, Arvind Kejriwal, or Government of Delhi articles as an accusation relating to her appointment. —SpacemanSpiff 09:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Borja Mayoral

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP, based on an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - never played in a fully-professional league, aside from what GiantSnowman already mentioned above. MYS 77 ^✉ 00:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Awarded as top goalscorer at the 2015 UEFA European Under-19 Championship. Big article about him is on UEFA website, also see AS.com, Marca.com. 95.134.120.199 (talk) 01:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As Bill Wilson Center. Sandstein 08:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

William Bill Wilson, Jr.

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

Fails WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename Bill Wilson Center with some copy editing, as the center is more notable than the man [7] [8] [9]. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Serving on city council in a non-metropolitan city does not satisfy WP:NPOL, and the article is not well-sourced enough to get over WP:GNG either. I'm inclined to agree with Dennis Brown above, the center named after him would likely qualify for an article under WP:ORG — and that article could easily contain a brief biographical note about the politician it was named after, without him needing a separate standalone biography. Merge into a new article about the Bill Wilson Center. Bearcat (talk) 00:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Bill Wilson Center per Dennis Brown (talk · contribs) and Bearcat (talk · contribs). I have rewritten the article and ask the closing admin to rename the article. Cunard (talk) 05:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good work Cunard, thanks for doing the heavy lifting. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Dennis Brown (talk · contribs), for searching for sources and suggesting that the article be reframed to discuss a related notable topic. Without your diligence, the encyclopedia likely would not have this article. Cunard (talk) 03:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep happy for the article to be renamed to Bill Wilson Center. Theroadislong (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Theroadislong (talk · contribs), for reviewing the rewrite and supporting the renaming. Cunard (talk) 03:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close as no consensus. Reading the debate prima facie there may be a narrow consensus to delete. However, in light of the wholesale changes to the article since all the !votes came in, and acknowledging that some of the "delete" !votes noted that if the article was improved their opinions would likely change, I'm closing this as no consensus to delete. (I would have relisted, but it's already been open for 14 days.) Anyone can renominate at any stage if they so desire. Daniel (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Visa requirements for Somali citizens

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

Wikipedia is not a travel guide; only travelers would be interested in the (number of) countries Somalia's passports and visas are accepted in. This does not merit a standalone article. Esquivalience ^t 01:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. What's in the article now is pretty incomprehensible anyway. Keep per Twofortnights' total revamp. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't even make a list of countries, which I was expecting. Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite)^{i've made a huge mess} 09:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per now & above, Brilliant for those living or travelling to Somali, Useless for those who aren't. –Davey2010^Talk 18:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see "not travel guide" as being engaged by a definition and a ranking (92nd in the world) from the Visa Restrictions Index. James500 (talk) 03:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It is still not worthy of a standalone article; merging into another article may provide more context. The problem is, if this is retained, then trash that belongs on Wikivoyage would end up here. Esquivalience ^t 01:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A stub in line with the many similar articles. Not a travel guide, but a stub-level foreign policy article. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the article remains like this then it should be deleted, but if it's brought up to the standard of other similar articles then it should be kept.--Twofortnights (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am not seeing any valid argument for deletion here. Apart from the original rationale which I've opined on above, "people might add inappropriate content" is a non argument because they might not, and even if they did, we could remove it. "Needs improvement" won't work either because of IMPERFECT, PRESERVE and ATD. No problem that can't be fixed by editing seems to be alleged. James500 (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references are provided, let alone any reliable sources to show notability.--Rpclod (talk) 04:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Visa Restrictions Index is being cited as a reference. So the article isn't unreferenced. Nor can I see the basis for calling it unreliable. Articles don't have to show notability. Notability is depends on the existences of sources, not their citation in the article. Have you done a BEFORE search for sources? James500 (talk) 05:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE searches are requested of nominators, not responders. There is no reference for "Visa Restrictions Index 2014" just a mention in the article. The index itself is just "a global ranking of countries according to the travel freedom that their citizens enjoy". It does not tend to prove the assertions in the article nor does it support the notability of the article.--Rpclod (talk) 05:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the nominator has not argued that topic is not notable due to lack of coverage. In any event, the effect of NRVE is clearly that any argument for deletion based on lack of references in the article, and a refusal to personally look for sources, is invalid. The Index is clearly being cited in support of the ranking (92nd in the world) asserted in the article. It doesn't have to be in a footnote to be a reference. James500 (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have significantly expanded the article as you can see here - https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Visa_requirements_for_Somali_citizens&diff=672187254&oldid=670877181 I hope this can settle the issue and that article is now eligible to be kept on Wikipedia.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Sandstein 08:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC) Note from creator: I have to withdraw this page now due to the fact that the 2016 Open Championship article has been rightfully filled in, as it is under one year from now. At a later date, I will create a new page for this (2016 PGA Championship) with the proper updated information.[reply]

2016 PGA Championship, 2016 Open Championship

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

Delete: as having been made too early, and empty. New editor seems to have created these pages seemingly for no reason other than to create them, and these pages are empty, and it's confusing the situation; I edit the golf related articles and found these, making matters confusing because these are articles pertaining to annual events that are next year, in which this year's events have not been held yet, let alone next year's. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. These pages are redirects, not articles. The previous AfD nomination was closed for being the wrong venue. The correct venue is WP:Redirects for discussion, not AfD. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy procedural keep plus trout slap for nominator. As mentioned above by Gene93, the first AFD was closed because AFD was the wrong venue. The editor who started the first AFD withdrew his nomination but repeats it again. A trout slap is more than appropriate here....William 11:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maxi Dolan

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

Non-notable musician. This article was proposed for deletion, noting that the BBC interview that was used as a citation was specifically identified as "eye on local talent" indicating that Dolan's reknown has not yet reached the level to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. In removing the proposed deletion template, the IP editor also removed the link to the BBC interview. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No substantial references found. --Finngall ^talk 03:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BAND, not seeing any press coverage yet. A single BBC interview source would be WP:NEWSPRIMARY whatever the context. --McGeddon (talk) 09:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 21:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Heller

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

Fails WP:NPERSON being only mentioned in passing as a television actress's husband, in the specific sources provided. McGeddon (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as his own bio site lists no sources. Venues of exhibition do not confer notability.--Theredproject (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination Sulabhvarshney (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn because a new title suggested in the course of the debate help to solve the problem of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lagos Province

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and no attempt by the page creator to establish the subject notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Excuse me but is this for real? The ecclesiastical provinces of the Church of Nigeria meet all the criteria of notability and I never had any problem starting the articles concerning the Abuja Province, Bendel Province and the others. The article about Lagos Province meets all the criteria of notability, despite being still in the stub phase. If a diocese meets all the criteria so does a ecclesiastical province for sure.Mistico (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I usually don't expect anything different from a "keep" or "merge" and sometime "redirect" vote from an article creator when their articles get nominated for deletion through WP:AfD because editors rarely want their articles or contributions deleted. Nonetheless, can you point out the multiple independent reliable sources that establish the subject notability? Note that notability is not inherited and its beyond a passing mention. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of RS that we can find to verify the number of the Church of Nigeria ecclesiastical provinces importance for the denomination, considering that its the second largest and the fastest growing Anglican church in the world, thats why they have 14, like this one: [10]Mistico (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its so amazing that the source you provided does not even mention the subject of the article under discussion at all. The source you provided is all about the Church of Nigeria. I remind you again that notability is not inherited. If a subject under discussion is independently notable, provide the evidence to show that. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Anglican provinces are inherently notable, and this one is one of the most significant. St Anselm (talk) 02:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

notability is not inherited. Inherited notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects and Inherent notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it exists, even if zero independent reliable sources have ever taken notice of the subjec. In either case, Notability requires verifiable evidence. This is why notability is usually neither inherited nor inherent: inherited and inherent notability claims can't be verified with evidence. They are only mere personal opinion. Notability of one or more members of some group or class of subjects may or may not apply to other possible members of that group. Discuss based upon the individual subject, not the subject's overarching classification or type. If a subject under discussion is independently notable, provide the evidence to show that. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is written contradicts your logic: "Inherent notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it exists, even if zero independent reliable sources have ever taken notice of the subject. This is usually phrased as "All ____ are notable", for example, "all high schools are notable" or "no elementary schools are notable"." This by no means applies to the ecclesiastical provinces of a Anglican church. Can you please explain us your opinion because why do you think the ecclesiastical provinces of the Church of Nigeria arent notable, because there are dozens of sources that can corroborate the opposite? I already added one and its just needed to find RS about the growth of the Church of Nigeria. Your logic seems to go on circles and just keeps repeating the same. If you`re from Nigeria why don`t you try to find sources yourself? Here are two good sources: "Seven new Archbishops have been named by the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) in a restructuring exercise endorsed at the Episcopal Synod concluded on Thursday, November 28 in Orlu Diocese, Imo State in Eastern Nigeria./ The Church now has ten Archbishops under a new arrangement, which replaced the old regime of three provinces with ten Ecclesiastical provinces."[11] [12] Mistico (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what are we discussing here? Lagos Province or ecclesiastical provinces of Anglican church? if you are talking about "ecclesiastical provinces of Anglican church", that's a different topic but this discussion is primarily on Lagos Province (which is not notable). All the sources you provided, including "www.oikoumene.org" does not in anyway establish the subject notability. Its just an evidence that the "Diocese of Lagos" exist. In addition, it does not even mention "Lagos Province". Note that "Province" is not the same as "Diocese". If you are talking about "Diocese of Lagos", that's a different topic. I don't think, I had severally repeated myself here and if I do, its simply because you are not getting it. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This proves that the Ecclesiastical Province of Lagos exists and is at least somewhat notable. The fact that something isnt easy to prove doesnt make it untrue, at least for someone like me who isnt an expert in the subject, and I think that someone that knew better the Nigerian press or the subject of religion of Nigeria, would certainly assure its notability. [13] [14]Mistico (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never insinuated that "Lagos Province" is a WP:HOAX. I think the appropriate title should be "Ecclesiastical Province of Lagos". Do you mind if we change the title of the article from "Lagos Province" to "Ecclesiastical Province of Lagos"? Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. To avoid confusions with a political entity, I am changed the title.Mistico (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The new title will surely be helpful and with that, you can find multiple third-party independent reliable sources that establish the subject notability. I'm going to close the discussion as Keep but in the future do not attempt to WP:Canvass other editors at WP:AfD as you abysmally canvass User:Anglicanus and User:Ltwin on their talk page @ User talk: Anglicanus#Lagos Province and User talk:Ltwin#Lagos Province. In addition, your edit summary here and reporting other editors as you attempted at User talk:Mistico#Lagos Province simply because they disagree with you is simply not constructive. I'm aware of all this moves but I kept mute because I felt the best way we can improve Wikipedia is to collaborate together constructively and to always assume good faith. Thanks for contributing significantly to Wikipedia. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subjusridictions of churches are important both in terms of understanding the polity, ecclessiology and history of specific denominations. And Anglican dioceses in Africa tend to be extraordinarily large, so that's even more true of provinces. Ltwin (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this is your own personal opinion because your argument is not based on policy. You have not provide any evidence of the subject notability. Where are the sources that establish the subject notability? Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment I withdraw my nomination to Keep this article because I found plenty of sources that established the subject notability, with the new title, I suggested above. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Xiphoid 9 - A Commodore 64 Game

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

PROD tag removed. A Google search offers little to assert notability in the context of the general notability guideline. There does not appear to be a guideline for the notability of video games so I suppose that is the only one that is relevant. Thank you, ceradon (talk • contribs) 01:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in the article is verified or (as far as I could find) verifiable. Verifiability is even more important than notability, although that also fails - for lack of sources. --MelanieN (talk) 22:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I consider myself a fan of the Commodore 64 and tend to be pretty knowledgable on the system and it's software. I've never heard of this game, and multiple sites I've gone to that cotain info on the Commodore 64 and its software turn up nothing on this. I can't see how this is remotely notable enough for inclusion. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no coverage at all, possibly even a hoax. The only thing a Google search comes up with is the article and this AfD. Esquivalience ^t 00:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bay City (Another World)

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

Fails WP:N. Article is WP:LISTCRUFT of fictional places within the universe of soap opera Another World and its residents' homes. No sources for any content, and only external link is to a fansite. AldezD (talk) 04:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete. No evidence found of WP:GNG distinct from the show. Leave fan pages like these to fan sites, not Wikipedia. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete as fancruft. Seyasirt (talk) 16:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — At the very least, this should be deleted per WP:TNT. So scarce is any encyclopedic information in the article that the best thing to do is to start over from scratch. The article is written almost entirely from an in-universe perspective, and much of it would only interest a small populations of fans. I've also found no evidence of reliable sources which give an in-depth discussion the subject, so it's likely non-notable as well. Mz7 (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SearchLock

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

Not notable under WP:GNG. Not an important or widely covered browser extension, no outside sources found after a reasonably thorough search. The extension is also misrepresented in the article: it's also an ad-serving platform, thus Google only brings up "how to remove SearchLock virus" results. Unlikely to be malicious but it's worth waiting to create this article until the product is notable. Article creator de-PRODed the article without addressing issues on talk page. Wieldthespade (talk) 05:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is said that "Not an important or widely covered browser extension" but there are more than 357,000 weekly active users as reported by the Google Chrome Web Store [15]. And this is also wrong that, "it's also an ad-serving platform" becasue it is NOT an ad serving platform any more than DuckDuckGo, Google, or Bing are ad serving platforms. The extension effectively sets SearchLock as the users' primary search engine and monetizes through search ads, nothing else. In addition, all of the articles promoting SearchLock as a virus or ad serving platform are promoting paid antivirus software for which the blog owners earn a commission when purchased. Some of these blogs even do the same thing to DuckDuckGo (a well respected extension) in order to generate commissions..for instance DuckDuckGo or Remove DuckDuckGo etc. Thank you. Prasenjitmouri (talk) 10:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No secondary source coverage, and the article is promotional to boot. It's very close to being speedy for spam. Agtx (talk) 07:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It can be trimmed if you think the tone/wordings are promotional. Such extensions like LibX, Lucifox, DeeperWeb etc. usually do not get wide coverage except their popularity in the browser's page.Prasenjitmouri (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - blogs, press releases and app store listings do not show notability.--Rpclod (talk) 04:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Wikipedia is not here for advertising. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable web content/computer programme/etc. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources in the references, notability has not been established, content is promotional. Scr★pIron^IV 14:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any evidence in the references that this is a notable product. Deli nk (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural closure. Nomination by blocked sock, disagreeing !votes. May be speedily renominated, provided WP:BEFORE is observed. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy Bonnecaze

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

Not notable. Despite what the essay at WikiProjectPoker claims, winning a side event at the WSOP does not meet the Wikipedia notability requirement. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 00:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 July 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two WSOP wins is sufficient. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 06:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage to demonstrate notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While WSOP bracelets seems to becoming a dime a dozen, WP:Notability_(poker_players) does state: "Competition of equivalent standing in poker is generally limited to the winners of WPT/WSOP/EPT events or Poker Hall of Fame inductees." I don't really think that this subject has sufficient notability to warrant an article, but that seems to conflict with the Wikipedia essay on notability. Perhaps the essay needs to be re-visited?--Rpclod (talk) 04:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep two time WSOP bracelet winner. note: Nomination is by blocked sock.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 17:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 21:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Big Paybacc

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

Delete: as non-notable rapper. Quis separabit? 01:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This [16] is not a reliable source, but could be a start to find more information about him. Looks like he released two mixtapes under a record label. There is so much press about the shooting that it is difficult to sort through to find collaborations or chart history. --TTTommy111 (talk) 03:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 06:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He was a very minor rapper who recieved coverage because he was murdered, but not enough to make his murder notable. He does not vpass notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP is not news.--Rpclod (talk) 04:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by all means - With his death, there is unfortunately no future possibility of notability and my searches such as this found no outside or significant coverage to suggest improvement and notability aside from usual news sources for his death (no evident sources to even suggest local notability). SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 22:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vít Malinovský

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

Unreferenced article about a musician that fails WP:MUSICBIO. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete A ext. links are to band/personal websites. Seyasirt (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree; has no evidence of notability. All links are to primary sources. Fylbecatulous talk 13:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 22:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Raymond

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

Notability is dubious. User HolySmokes1971 seems to be in a conflict of interest. bender235 (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is a mixture of POV and advocacy...person is not notable either.Sattar91 (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing shows WP:GNG notability. Appears to be WP:SELFPROMOTION.--Rpclod (talk) 04:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - I took extra minutes to ensure I saw what the article said and, given my searches here and here (latter is extra from News), I would rather move elsewhere but he's not mentioned at Singapore Sports Hub and there's not current article for Singapore Enviromental Council (I'm not sure if this is notable). SwisterTwister talk 17:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore). MBisanz ^talk 19:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Singapore MRT disruptions

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

Not notable according to policy on Notable Events. Event did not have lasting effects, was strictly local, and no coverage has been provided. I have discussed this with the author, who claims to have sources to add, but depth of coverage will not change the nature of the event, which I think was essentially fleeting and local, so not notable by Wikipedia policy. ubiquity (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability section: I have third party reliable sources from the media, especially Singapore media, which is a big thing since two of Singapore's major MRT lines were suspended simultaneously due to power trip, which then affected about 250,000 commuters during the peak hours. This is something worth noting about especially similar to 2011 Singapore MRT disruptions — Preceding gshq88 comment added by Gshq88 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS... Until there's content to expand this with and more references to add, this belongs on WikiNews. Linkle KMF (talk) 13:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS - Bus/Train disruptions happen everywhere so I honestly can't see why there needs to be an article over it .... We get train disruption in the UK by snow and 9 times of 10 it's all plastered over the news but it doesn't get an article as that'd be ridiculous and it's the same with this- A network had a power issue which resulted in a 3hr train disruption ... that's it!, Not really article-worth IMHO. –Davey2010^Talk ~~17:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)~~ (Expanded) 14:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore): Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Even if it is the largest disruption in the MRT, until there is actual effect, which I doubt will happen, it is not notable, fails WP:EVENT. It is also best covered in the service's article, as it provides better context. Esquivalience ^t 01:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a three hour train disruption is not notable.--Rpclod (talk) 04:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be notable if this disruption is described as the country's 'unprecedented' (see this coverage) breakdown? --Lionratz (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Unprecedented" just means it hasn't happened before (for that location). It does not equate to "notable".--Rpclod (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"::::According to WP:Lasting, "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable". Added to the fact that this event has received national coverage, this should be sufficient to establish notability.--Lionratz (talk) 07:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While I agree that this article is poorly written, notability should not be the issue. This event has been covered by major Singaporean news agencies (Channel News Asia, The Straits Times (which incidentally carried a multi-page report on this event) and even Reuters. It would likely have lasting impact since it was described as 'unprecedented' by SMRT's own chief, much like how the 2011 Singapore MRT disruptions keeps on appearing in the news about transport policies. As such, the article meets WP:EVENT but needs to be urgently improved--Lionratz (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Info will be valid long after it drops from news. Decent Dan Moore (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in condensed form to Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore). Until we have a much better and longer article, this is better covered in context there. Sandstein 08:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 22:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Figli d'Italia

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

Does not meet WP:NMEDIA or WP:PERIODICAL. Only article reference is a dead link (a search on the site brings up nothing). This is a non-notable mag that ran for only 3 months? google search brings up nothing usable, only seller sites, (not of magazine but of souviner metal plates of magazine cover) and this: [17] which has very small description only. And a journal translated as Sons of Italy in America issued from 1947 to 1961 which is not this magazine. Italian wikipedia does not include this. Article created by (almost) one article (this one) editor. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The expression "figli d'Italia" is quite common, so narrowing this down to resources about a particular publication is difficult. I was able to find one reference to a publication of this name for the relevant time period [18] but nothing more. LaMona (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only reference is a dead link. Nothing suggests notability.--Rpclod (talk) 04:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Young African Leaders Forum (YALF)

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't find the significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources that established the subject notability. I will also consider the article creator for WP:SPI soon. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article, much like the sister article on Prince Ifoh, is largely promotional, unverifiable, and does not meet the notability threshold. The editor who created it has only edited articles pertaining to YALF and Prince Ifoh and is currently banned indefinitely for sock-puppetry. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 04:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 15:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Gbawden (talk) 11:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This Young African Leaders Forum lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Wikipedia is not here for advertising. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 09:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Garriff Lion Reserve

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

Article about a lion sanctuary in South Africa, probably written with well-meaning though misguided intent (same author wrote Andi Rive article that was based on an email interview) but it is difficult to establish whether this is a notable farm. There is some sort of unidentified TV series (described in this TV fansite) and a brief mention in a news article about a lion. Apart from that I've struggled to find anything reliable or significant. If it was the subject of a TV series on a major Tv channel (and received some journalistic interest) I may have been convinced to let the article pass. As it is, I think the subject falls below the WP:GNG threshold. Sionk (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and draft/userfy - As much as I love subjects like these, I'm not finding any good sources about it aside from various links here. I'm not from South Africa so I'm not sure about the coverage there but I'm not seeing much for possible improvement. For other users, it's worth noting the article was larger until it was removed. SwisterTwister talk 22:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 15:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A bit of additional RS (but perhaps incidental) coverage: major South African newspapers reported in November 2014 about the move of 2 lions from the Pretoria Zoo to the Glen Garriff Lion Farm. [19][20][21]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note they are all the same, identically worded (and short) SAPA news article. Sionk (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG, insufficient sources in article to determine notability. Sandstein 08:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 22:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marian Tee

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

Claims to be a bestselling author but I can't find any reliable sources for it or her, and it appears most if not all of her books are self-published or published by obscure publishers like Jaded Speck (there's a lot of books, I'm trying to check a bunch of them to be sure). — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 16:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, apparently those "best sellers" are boxed sets that include a whole bunch of different authors. That explains why my initial search didn't result in anything. A new editor added some references today, and I fixed the info up a bit. Still think she's not notable though. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A New York Times and USA Today bestselling author without reliable coverage? Surprising... except I couldn't find any independent coverage that would confirm that status anyway. Or for her. Or for any of her novels. If someone can find a source which confirms that she's a NY Times or USA Today bestselling author, ping me. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Also, I would find it very surprising if an author who has spent her entire life in the Philippines can become a bestselling author in America at all. The books written here usually don't go very far. And she would have been reported by the news here (Filipino news programs and websites tend to document the international accomplishments of Filipinos), which would mean I would have at least heard of her (which I haven't). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I only found this: [22]. Bearian (talk) 02:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 15:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete The boxed set that supposedly made it onto the NYT bestseller list has exactly 16 GHits, none of them to reviews outside sites like Goodreads. Lacking citations there's not a lot of reason to believe this promotional article. Seyasirt (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete This is maybe the most extreme authort AFD I've ever seen. As some regulars on these AFDs know, I've only been at this for a few months, but I have defended a series of minor literary authors, non U.S. based writers, and popular but little written-up authors - Rebecca Donovan. But I'm stymied by this one. Tee appears to be the ultimate Paperback Writer. She sells books, she makes it onto bestseller lists, but she gets absolutely zero respect. To make certain I was being fair, I went to the list of newspapers in Manila, and ran her name through searches on the websites. I got no hits, none at all. And without sources, we cannot have a WP article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Vallourec. Sandstein 08:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VAM Drilling

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

No evidence of any notability. Refs are own refs and one tangential ref in a specialist web business magazine. Products section reads like an advert. Fails WP:CORP. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My French skills are basic so unless a good French article can be made, I didn't find that many good sources with searches here, here, here, here and here. It's worth noting the article started like this until becoming a little more acceptable here; it's also interesting noting the article has existed since August 2009 so that was sufficient time for improvement but it's simply a matter of work and an interested user for it to happen. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 15:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Redirect to Vallourec. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Vallourec, no independent notability, stand-alone article not warranted Kraxler (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Based on the coverage and community input, passes WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) JAaron95 ^Talk 14:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(SCENE) Metrospace

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

I couldn't stablish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. I think it should be deleted, or there is the possibily fo a redirect to either List of museums in Michigan or East Lansing, Michigan. Boleyn (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep due to local coverage such as [[23]], [[24]], and [[25]].--Rpclod (talk) 04:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rpclod. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - per the two users above. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 08:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

SDD Global Solutions

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Those seeking deletion pointed out the lack of reliable sources demonstrating notability. While James500 suggested that there were such sources, none were provided here or in the article. No prejudice against recreation if notability can be established. Chillum 14:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

I couldn't establish that they meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Their parent company might, but they don't have an article. Boleyn (talk) 20:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If their parent company is notable, and they are not, (upon which I make no representation) the correct solution is to move the page to the name of the parent company, and rework the article accordingly. James500 (talk) 13:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment James500, I'm not asserting that the parent company is notable, just that there is a possibility it would meet criteria, but SDD definitely doesn't. Boleyn (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of that. James500 (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing shows WP:ORG notability.--Rpclod (talk) 04:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (draft/userfy if wished) - My searches found nothing good to suggest solid notability here, here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 05:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly move to the name of its parent company and rework as suggested. SDD Global satisfies GNG due to coverage in GBooks, GNews and elsewhere. James500 (talk) 05:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Xtreme Turf

AfDs for this article:

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

This reads like a gigantic advert. There's no real sourcing and very little to actually say about this company, except that they make artificial turf. A search on Google News reveals a whole lot of press releases and very little besides. Fails WP:GNG.

In addition, it was created by an account called "Actglobal", which just so happens to be the name of the company. Pretty clear COI. (I've blocked the username.)

Previous AfD closed as no consensus due to inactivity. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would renominated if I had also found it as it unfortunately looks more like personal webpage and my searches (News, Books, highbeam amd Thefreelibrary) found nothing particularly good aside from this and this. There's not a shred of third-party coverage and future chances are unlikely. SwisterTwister talk 17:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - reads like and is allegedly supported by press releases.--Rpclod (talk) 04:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rybicki Press algorithm

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

Not sure if this is significant, but if it is, it needs far more information and references. As the article is, it seems a good fit for deletion. | Naypta^talk opened his mouth at 16:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I added what appears to be the original source for this, a paper by Rybicki and Press (obviously they don't give the algorithm the name it has here). Their paper has 44 citations in Google scholar, possibly enough for notability, but other than a recent arXiv preprint generalizing this method (not yet published and therefore not yet reliable) I didn't find much in the way of nontrivial coverage in secondary sources. If this is kept, it should be moved to Rybicki–Press algorithm. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question: How significant were the citations? Bearian (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article fails to describe why the equation might be notable nor provides any references that support notability.--Rpclod (talk) 04:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although I can see citations to the research, what I cannot find is anything indicating that this algorithm is particularly significant or important. Mathematicians who are interested in linear algebra might find it interesting, but that does not mean it is notable, as defined by Wikipedia. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I've expanded the article a little bit with a couple of citations with an eye toward putting the article topic in context ... albeit I am a biologist/informatician and not a mathematician/astrophysicist. I am thinking this is one of a small number of algorithms used currently in periodic phenomenon detection in astronomy ... one application of such detection being identification of extra solar planets (though I added no citations related to this use). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to be discussed in the academic literature as identified above. Not understanding it or why it's important isn't itself a criterion for deletion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to All or Nothing (band). Daniel (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Money (album)

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

A search indicates this is a self-released album of a non-notable band. fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG Flat Out (talk) 23:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 23:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 23:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 23:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to band - My searches easily found nothing good and it's not surprising for an indie album. SwisterTwister talk 17:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to band. Notability of the band itself is questionable, let alone one album.--Rpclod (talk) 04:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raghunath Nambiar

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

This person lacks WP:Notability. All sources cited are either written by Nambiar, or just mention him in passing. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - It may well be that's an important figure and well-known in the field but my searches found nothing particularly good here, here, here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 21:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP is not LinkedIn.--Rpclod (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

it is unfortunate that this page is deleted. Several scholars of similar calibre exist on wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._Mohan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopa_Periyadan so, i request you reinstate this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by KaUni (talk • contribs) 06:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Senan Abdelqader

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

Blatant autobio (or close to it). Is notability established? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:- RHaworth, I think WP:BEFORE should answer your question. Nonetheless, subject of the article meet WP:BASIC. He is a prominent and leading Palestinian architect. I easily found this book, Haaretz, New York Times, Israel National News, World News Report, New York Times, The Guardian News, Haarets, The National, Green Prophet, arch daily, this book, Palestine family, this book on cultural adaptation, this book on Ai Weiwei: Spatial Matters: Art Architecture and Activism, this book authored by Wendy pullan, also mention in this book, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Singapore Concrete Institute to mention few. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 14:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per Wikicology's findings. Profiles in the New York Times and Guardian among others give him a clear and obvious pass of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There seems to be wide agreement that the article in its current state doesn't adequately indicate how Nikas meets our notability criteria. This is not a statement on the quality of his work. As User:AS_Sydney has indicated a desire to keep working on the article, I have moved it to Draft:Kosta Nikas for further improvements, however it should not be moved back into mainspace without some form of community review (WP:AFC or WP:DRV, etc). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kosta Nikas

Non-notable director, what sources are in the article consist of press releases and imdb.com entries. Note that the "feature film directorial debut" mentioned in the lead has virtually no coverage of its own outside social media and an official website link that opens to a default page. The award from the LA Shorts Fest (an article tagged for dubious notability issues at present) does not appear to be sufficiently noteworthy. Perhaps if there was any coverage at all in reliable secondary sources it could contribute, but on its own is insufficient. Tarc (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is one of the inherent difficulties with Wiki - you spend more time dealing with the actions of editors who haven't really taken a look to see that the same thing has been done a couple of times and so I spent a whole weekend trying to establish this page and I am mid-way through upgrading sources,partiuallyy to satisfy some of your concerns. Even worse, if you were able to look up the LA Shorts Fest sourcing, surely you could have upgraded the source yourself instead of creating unnecessary extra admin - please hold your fire until I've attended to this please. AS_Sydney (talk) 00:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC) Note: AS_Sydney is the creator of this article.[reply]

Whether the subject's film won this "Shorts" award isn't a point of contention, the problem is that the award itslef is not a notable one. More editing will not change that. Tarc (talk) 01:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that the Award IS actually notable - in fact the award is so notable that winning it makes you eligible to be nominated for the Oscars - do you understand that? I will be updating the LA Shorts wiki entry -- Can we now please shit this ridiculous conversation and remoive the tag on the article? AS_Sydney (talk) 09:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry - you're argument is simply nonsensical. In your opinion, the award is not notable, but I think that's based on your own views rather than a lack of credible sources. Of course your perception of it being "not notable" can be addressed with more editing. Editing includes the upgading of sources, which I am in the process of doing. This has taken me some time due to interference from editors who I'm sure are well-meaning but simply duplicate the wayward assertions of the previous. AS_Sydney (talk) 05:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc, I don't know how you can be so assertive and so ignorant at the same time on a subject. So far I have discovered sourced and upgraded refs on LA Shorts Fest wikipedia page - mind you, one reputable and authoritative periodical, Movie Maker magazine reported way back in 2009 that the LA Shorts Fest had (and this was six years ago) sent 33 short filmmakers to the Oscars as nominees with 9 of them claiming the golden statuette. It doesn't matter that you reside on a far and distant planet Tarc - based on what I've just highlighted, this is a NOTABLE film festival. Please put your energies into perhaps doing some homework rather than tearing down the work of other unpaid, initially-enthusiastic editors such as myself because you make their lives a nightmare. Right then, I'm wrapping this discussion and removing the speedy deletion take. Thankyou AS_Sydney (talk) 14:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You will not be removing any deletion tag from any article, I'm afraid. Once nominated, a discussion usually stays open for 7 days, giving other editosd a chance to weigh in. IMO, the work done is squeezing blood from a stone, and we're still at the same point; winning a minor award and insufficient coverage in reliable sources. Might want to think about toning down the uppity language as well, this is not a battleground. Tarc (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well no, you're not listening. And I have to say, I'm not intending to isolate you or attack you but as a newish editor, I cannot believe the trigger happiness here. The award was not minor as it also made him eligible for an Oscars nomination. By the way, I'm not a full time wikipedian, this upgrading is still in progress and I do it when I get the opportunity. AS_Sydney (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't see that it meets WP:DIRECTOR. Closer to meeting WP:GNG, but best coverage is for receiving some questionable funding from a government department. I do note that article has only been recently created, and I'd be more than willing to change my vote if some quality 3rd party coverage was found.Doctorhawkes (talk) 06:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read those articles insider out Doctorhawkes and there is NO questionable funding although it appears obvious that's the impression the reporting is meant to make. I'm strongly of the view it is not only baseless, but also legally contentious. AS_Sydney (talk) 06:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DOctorhawkes - please go easy and don't undo the hard work i've put in finding additional sources. AS_Sydney (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many of the original concerns expressed by Tarc have now been addressed I feel. I have put considerable effort into upgrading sourcing on the article and also attended to some flimsy sourcing on the LA Shorts Fest article which after quite a bit of research appears to indeed be one of the well regarded, Academy-recognised annual festivals 14.00 ^[1] and one of the longest running and this is one clear example that importance does not necessarily mean a glut of published stories. I still have a couple of minor tweas to attend to there, but I hope you'll agree there's a considerable improvement. Many of the IMDB references have been substituted or supplemented. Also, - if we are to accept that the Academy (of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences) Awards are the ultimate in terms of populist honours for filmmakers, then the list of qualifying film festivals 14.00 ^[2] - of which LA Shorts Fest has been a long-term inclusion, can surely not be disregarded. AS_Sydney (talk) 06:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Rules And Eligibility for Short Film Awards At The Oscars". Oscars.org. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Retrieved 17 July 2015.
^ "Oscars short films qualifying festival list" (PDF). Oscars.org. Retrieved 17 July 2015.

Delete promo advert of one-movie film director who doesn't pass WP:FILMMAKER, most refs in the article are trivial mentions, so he doesn't pass WP:GNG either. The award from the LA Shorts Fest (for "Best Experimental Light") is not something that confers notability under WP:ANYBIO #1 . Notability is not established by name-dropping. Kraxler (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - The "promo advert" comment. In fact, it's far from a promo advert because a person - me - is working on it not only voluntarily, but also at great opportunity cost as this is a very time-consuming process. Your opinion that things are trivial are not helpful. I don't follow the logic that a festival that has been long established and an Academy Awards-accredited benchmark for Oscar nominees as well as a BAFTA (that's the British equivalent if you didn't know)-accredited benchmark for its awards could not be notable. This is from LA Shorts Fest article:

In 2010, MovieMaker magazine reported that a total of 33 LA Shorts Fest winners had earned Academy Award nominations, with 11 filmmakers taking home the Oscar^[7] According to Film Festival Life, LA Shorts Fest is the only film festival with seven award categories recognised by the Academy Awards. It reported this year that a total of 44 LA Shorts Fest winners have progressed through to become Academy Award nominees, with 14 filmmakers taking home an Oscar.^[8] AS_Sydney (talk)

You can make all the follow-up comments you like, but please do not vote for a second time. I have struck trough the "Keep", above. Tarc (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RE AS_Sydney. Has Kosta Nikas's short movie been nominated for the Oscar? It' doesn't matter how many others got nominated, notablity is not determined by association, friendship, acquaintance or name-dropping. The festival was founded in 1997, it's quite recent and rather unknown to the broad public. A "trivial mention" is a notability criterion, not a statement that the subject is trivial. It means that the subject is mentioned somewhere (to illustrate a point, or giving an opinion) in a text about a different subject. Please read WP:GNG. Kraxler (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From what I can see, the subject has created one film, which has won an award at a festival whose notability has been questioned. The film or the director have not actually received Oscar or BAFTA nominations (being eligible to be nominated is not the same thing), and certainly has not won any Oscar or BAFTA award. Of course, if it has actually been nominated for one of those, then that would help show notability of the film - but I can't find it listed anywhere as nominated. As such, the film does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, and neither does this director. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (WP:CSD#G4: Recreation of an article deleted by a previous discussion) by JamesBWatson (talk · contribs)

Gaurav Agarwal CS

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

This article, in its present state, appears to be about a non-notable mid-level civil servant in India. The sole claim to notability, that he is the Director of the Ministry of Youth Affairs, appears to be patently false, as that position is held by Sarbananda Sonowal (see this). The article was originally written about a computer programmer who had founded a non-notable website, and when that article was tagged for speedy deletion, it was completely rewritten to be about a completely different person. I'm not sure what the author is up to, but this article pretty clearly has no place at Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing suggests that WP:GNG notability is met.--Rpclod (talk) 05:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mostly single source. Delete it.--122.166.137.167 (talk) 15:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have tagged the article with {{db-repost}} based on the existence of this prior deletion discussion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea

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

Notability concerns. Only references are to a bookseller and a user review site owned by the same bookseller. SpinningSpark 11:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The following sources seem to be sufficient to establish that this book meets WP:NBOOK: [26] [27] [28] [29] Everymorning talk 11:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 11:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 11:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information and reputable references have been added to support the notability. Many incoming and outcoming wikilinks.

Lamro (talk) 12:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It needs more than a quoted review longer than the article's original prose, but this book was widely reviewed, as Everymorning's links show, and is clearly notable. See also [30], [31], [32] Interesting to see the contrast between the negative professional reviews and the positive popular ones. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In view of the sources presented, I withdraw my nomination and call for speedy keep. SpinningSpark 13:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Gosei Sentai Dairanger. Daniel (talk) 01:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Natsuki Takahashi

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

Minor actress with a short career who only appeared on 3 TV shows ([33]) and had no significant film roles ([34]). Searches of the net find no significant independent RS (though note that there is a boxer with the same kanji). Fails WP:NACTOR. Michitaro (talk) 11:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Michitaro (talk) 11:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR, which requires multiple significant roles, a cult following, or great contributions to the field. Also appears to fail WP:GNG, and the one source given isn't even about the actress at all; it's actually the profile for the boxer mentioned by the nominator, which makes this effectively an unsourced BLP. TallCorgi (talk) 22:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as an actress who has failed to receive enough coverage in reliable sources. A question though, wouldn't it be possible to disambiguate by adding the Japanese for "actor" in searches? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing any third-party sourcing or in-depth media coverage to demonstrate basic notability. --DAJF (talk) 08:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gosei Sentai Dairanger as this person is listed among the top cast there with my searches finding nothing including an IMDb to suggest good sources. SwisterTwister talk 21:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 01:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saki Kondo

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

Minor actress who only appeared in two TV shows ([35]) and one film ([36]). Her official profile no longer exists and searches of the net result in no significant independent RS. Fails WP:NACTOR. Michitaro (talk) 11:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Michitaro (talk) 11:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Quis separabit? 22:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seriously fails WP:NACTOR; her few roles are insignificant, and there's no indication she meets the other criteria. The article's one "source" is a dead link, making this effectively an unsourced BLP. TallCorgi (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any third-party sourcing or in-depth media coverage to demonstrate basic notability. --DAJF (talk) 08:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 01:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of most viewed Arab YouTube videos

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

This could be merged to List of most viewed YouTube videos, but as it stands I don't see how a list of the most viewed YouTube videos of Arab origin is a notable topic. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Without references, this is useless and possibly misleading. Deb (talk) 10:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and WP:V. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 01:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Carr

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikipedia is not a staff directory for Studio 301. Promo piece for non notable producer/engineer. Lacks independent coverage about him in reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, fails WP:GNG as lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Anotherclown (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as my searches found nothing to suggest good sources to support independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure).

Juwaad Beg

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

Fails WP:BASIC, the sources given are just trivial "John Smith at Big Company said..." mentions. McGeddon (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 01:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Open Contracting

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

Fails WP:CORP, no claim of notability. JMHamo (talk) 09:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, I speedied this once, and the talk page "we" suggests there is an undeclared conflict of interest Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly promotional, unsources and conflict of interests. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing anything particularly outstanding to suggest improvement, with some of my searches here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 01:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Jones

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

No indication of notability - receiving a MBE is not enough. Hundreds of MBE's are awarded Gbawden (talk) 09:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. I declined to speedy delete the article because it stands to reason that a person who got an MBE can be presumed to be notable. However, there's nothing in the article to actually demonstrate that she is, on the whole, a notable person. —C.Fred (talk) 13:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete having an MBE gains her a few notability points, but they won't be enough unless there is significant coverage elsewhere. Le petit fromage (talk) 02:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Former teachers with MBEs are not exactly unusual. No real notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. postdlf (talk) 01:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of British game shows

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

Why do we need this when we have Category:British game shows? Laun chba ller 06:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CLN. Next. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Fully qualifies per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:British game shows. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, withdrawn. The article could use work though; would WP:GOCE be able to help or is there another place?--Laun chba ller 11:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 01:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Callum Fairweather

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

Non-notable actor with only one short independent source. Conifer (talk) 06:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a person who is mainly a model. One of scotlands most well known. See highlandCreativeProductionsLtd.com superiormodelManagement.Co.uk under commercial and imdb.com and search fairweather callum. if someone would like to edit this article or make it more professional looking feel free. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Entertainment Scotland (talk • contribs) 13:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite the claims of Fairweather being one of Scotland's best known, I can't actually find any sourcing to back up the claims of notability. He exists and has performed, but that's to be expected of anyone that chooses a particular career. What we need here are independent and reliable sources like news articles about Fairweather and those just don't seem to exist other than the short source already in the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article currently consists of a list of appearances on stage and in films. I agree that the lack of reliable sources means that notability isn't demonstrated when judging the subject of the article against WP:NACTOR or WP:NMODEL. There isn't any other detail that would suggest notability would occur through WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 06:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 01:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eliane Lust

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

While this article is likely a copyright violation, it also doesn't appear to be notable. All of the coverage for the article appears to be passing mentions with no in-depth coverage to speak of. Therefore, the article fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:ARTIST. I do not believe this article to be worthy of inclusion. Thank you, ceradon (talk • contribs) 06:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:GNG by a mile. Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite)^{i've made a huge mess} 07:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would have to agree as nominated and as per Eat me, I'm a red bean said. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 05:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The copyvio is the main concern but my searches aren't finding anything outstanding to suggest possible notability at this time, this, this (one "SF Examiner") and this. SwisterTwister talk 05:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Noting that this doesn't mean that Fairbairn is not a nice person, a talented player, or anything other than him not meeting our rather strict inclusion (notability) guidelines for living persons. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Fairbairn (writer)

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

I'm simply not entirely sure if he's notable and granted some of his work is from the 1970s and '80s so sources may be offline and I found a few online here, here (very few) and here (very few as well) but I'm not seeing anything particularly significant or good coverage. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find two books that he wrote, neither which would rise to notability for a writer. On the UK Go site, he's not even among the highest ranked players, so he doesn't achieve notability as a player. He apparently wrote for the UK Go community site, but that appears to have been a kind of informal "club" of afficionados, not something with editorial oversight. I'll check back to see if anyone finds more in the Go community that would make him notable. LaMona (talk) 16:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Disclaimer: I am a longstanding UK & British Go Association Go-player, and help on WikiProject Go.

John Fairbairn is well known and revered in UK Go (game) circles and beyond.

He's written 2 series of books, 7 separate books, and translated some, according to his bio on Sensei's Library (SL)).

Note that SL - whilst itself a Wiki - is one that WP happily accommodates, as a respected Go-source.

Fairbairn alone shares the distinction of a WP presence with Wikimedia's own Charles Matthews.

Trafford09 (talk) 10:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that users create and update their on pages on Sensei's Library, so those user pages can't be considered wp:RS. It is also a wiki, possibly limited to members of the group but still hard to fit into the WP concept of third-party, reliable sources. Of the four references on the page: #3 is SL; #4 is a site that Fairbairn is a founding member of, thus not a 3rd party source; #2 is a 404 but I think the same page can be found here [37], and that's the one that seems to show that he's not in the highest level of players. The remaining reference, #1, is a reference to a magazine that he wrote for, which doesn't seem to be a reference about him. So in terms of references, they aren't strong. I can find his books listed at publisher and sales sites, and at other Go sites [38], [39]. If any of these are significant in the genre, speak out. Thanks. LaMona (talk) 20:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment John is an old friend and colleague of mine, so I wouldn't want to vote on this one. He is certainly notable in his field of go scholarship. http://gogodonline.co.uk/faq/ notes that the game collection includes Fairbairn's Names Dictionary for go, a serious work of research which I believe is unrivalled in English, and probably in western languages generally.

Just as an example of the standard of his research, here is a forum post: [40]. The encyclopedia mentioned there was a CD-ROM production up to recently. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass notability guidelines for academics, authors or sportspeople.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While no doubt a knowledgeable person in his field, the information/references available do not show that he meets the notability guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by User:DGG per WP:G7, "One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. This can always be undone upon request." North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aliant Financial Corporation

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

Apparently non-notable bank of Alabama with my searches finding nothing good aside from [s&tbm=bks&tbo=1 this and this (says it was acquired in 2011 by USAmeriBanCorp which does not have a Wiki article, link has a few details but not much). The only linking article is List of banks in United States which could be redirected there or deleted if there are no plans for an article here (not much information). SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear SwisterTwister, I have no objection for deletion of said article.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 09:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy, Creator endorses deletion; can this be CSD:G7? Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 03:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged although there's the possibility of leaving it open for others to comment but I also think it this is an open and shut case (no signs of improvement). SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cahiers du cinéma. Sandstein 08:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cahiers du Cinéma's Top 10

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

List of Top Tens by who? No indication of notability or source. The Banner talk 22:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Cahiers du cinéma" seems to be Cahiers du cinéma, a French film magazine. Natg 19 (talk) 22:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cahiers du cinéma. This seems to be fitting for target article which isn't currently too long and the French WP article has this list included in it. --Oakshade (talk) 03:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with changes. This is an appropriately scoped set index list (actually a list of lists). The publisher of the content is a notable magazine; there is a source for the content (IMDB); and the content provides a particular structured viewpoint for otherwise unrelated films. The two changes which fall into AfD scope is to better reference the content by converting the external link to a proper citation and to create a lead section. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:33, 11 July 2015 (UTC) @Jonah2557:[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cahiers du cinéma with a collapsible list, as it provides better context, per WP:NOPAGE. Esquivalience ^t 16:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Providence Health & Services. Please raise merge proposals on article talk pages in future per WP:MERGE. Michig (talk) 06:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Providence Medical Group

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

It was suggested this be merged and I agree as there's not much useful information and the following searches found nothing outstanding here, here, here, here and here. Although I'm not sure how much can be merged as there is information about this at that page and should probably simply be redirected instead; it's worth noting that the parent company doesn't even have that much information about this at their website. @Rytyho usa: Care to comment? SwisterTwister talk 05:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content into Providence Health & Services, which is well-known in the PNW and can easily accommodate the info about their clinic division. Nate • (chatter) 09:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. Looks like PMG is just the physician's group within Providence Health Services. Just a detail regarding the organization of Providence Health; the two entities are not different enough to warrant two separate articles. PMG could (at most) have a subsection within Providence Health Services. I agree to merge the PMG content into the Providence Health Services article. Rytyho usa (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Providence Health & Services#Providence Medical Group. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nominator fails to advance an argument for deletion, proposing the action of merging. See WP:MERGE for information about merges. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Perry

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

I'm not entirely sure if he's independent notable and seems essentially best known for Dead Can Dance therefore some of the useful information here can be merged to the group's article and then redirected. My searches also didn't find anything hopeful here, here, here, here and here (from which I tried to improve but only found no good source). Even his Allmusic profile shows mostly Dead Can Dance performances and a few collaborations here and there but essentially Dead Can Dance and no significant coverage about him specifically. SwisterTwister talk 04:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This isn't the correct venue for merge proposals. Aside from that Brendan Perry is notable enough and there is sufficient to be said that a standalone article is justified. In addition to al Allmusic bio and two reviews of his solo albums, he had a top 30 album in Poland, there's an EW review cited in one of the album articles, there's further coverage of Perry's work outside of Dead Can Dance, e.g. CMJ New Music Monthly review, another, NPR. He has also worked as a producer ([41]). The options here seem to be keep or merge - either way this is the wrong venue. --Michig (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC) Plus further coverage from more focussed searches: Glide, Hot Press, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, Exclaim!, Czech coverage, Polish radio coverage. --Michig (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Michig: I hear you but what would you've suggested? Opening an RfC? I find AfDs attract a little better input and attention. If he's a little closer to independent notability and improving the article, I may withdraw but I'm not there yet. SwisterTwister talk 22:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to propose merges I would suggest doing so on the article's talk page, which is what both WP:MERGE and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion state should be done. After following WP:BEFORE of course. --Michig (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 09:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Seung-woo

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

Fails NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG NextGenSam619^t@lk 04:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. NextGenSam619^t@lk 04:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NextGenSam619^t@lk 04:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NextGenSam619^t@lk 04:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 08:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a Google News search for "lee seung woo" football - got 721 articles, and many of them feature the subject as the main focus of the article. I'd argue that that constitutes "significant coverage", and as such, passes WP:GNG. Just my 2 cents. Rockypedia (talk) 21:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for deletion he is South Korea national under-17 football team international , he played in 2014 AFC U-16 Championship and was the top scorer of the competition and voted as best player also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adnan n2 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Passes notability guidelines. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above comment by Adnan n2 Djln Djln (talk) 12:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. There's a ton of reliable third-party references available for this subject; a five-second Google search is all it takes to see that. Spend 5 more seconds to go to Google News and you see articles from as recently as 6 and 11 days ago; he's obviously achieved some level of notoriety already. Even without having played pro anywhere yet, he's obviously the most well-known South Korean youth player ever; that alone probably would merit an article, and on top of that you have all the coverage of the controversy with Real Madrid and Barcelona fighting over him, all documented in reliable sources. I don't see how anyone calls this a delete. Rockypedia (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of full disclosure, I was contacted on my talk page and alerted of this discussion; I don't know if that's against the rules or not. Regardless, I don't even remember editing this article, but looking at the history, I see that I just made some minor grammar and spelling fixes, and took out some non-NPOV adjectives and such. I have no connection with the subject of this article, and haven't had any contact, prior to this, with anyone on either side of this debate. Rockypedia (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did contact you , and I didn't know your opinion about this when I did, neither I knew you before , but it seems for me people didn't really knew there was such a discussion for deletion that's why I notifed few people randomly never had any contact with them before . Adnan (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly sufficient note has been taken of him. Similar in some ways to the Raheem Sterling situation where he received lots of coverage before he'd played a pro game - another good example where thinking beyond guidelines is a good idea. --Michig (talk) 06:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG with features in Marca and ESPN. I don't usually support football youth bios that don't meet WP:NFOOTY, mainly because I think the media has an unhealthy fixation on the sport and is willing to publish any type of rumour or hype. But I came across the article while searching for the "Korean Messi", hoping to find something on a female pro footballer and instead found tons of links about a 17 year old based in Spain. Digging further, it turns out that Lee was one of the six players that precipitated the current FIFA transfer embargo at Barcelona. Coupling that with his successful international youth career has me leaning support. And that is before looking for coverage in Korean sources under 이승우. [42][43] Fuebaey (talk) 15:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fuebaey and Adnan n2 Passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Someone provide further links for club career part. Just one link supports the whole category. NextGenSam619^t@lk 12:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not meeting WP:NFOOTY is irrelevant when the player meets the WP:GNG, as this one does. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by FreeRangeFrog per CSD G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion) and CSD G12 (copyright infringement). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Saad Robinson

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. Fails WP:BIO and other sections. reddogsix (talk) 03:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 01:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Armand Hirsch

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Armand Hirsch

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

Comment Notability concerns. WP: MUSIC WP: AB Biographical information not present in sources that would suggest notability. Zigmundbratwurst (talk) 03:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - I'm not familiar with this particular musician at all and my searches found nothing particularly good here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Yard

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

I've hunted for citations to support notability for this comic, and found no in-depth coverage. I don't think he meets the notability requirement. Diannaa (talk) 03:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As a general rule, I dislike assertions that start with statements like "I couldn't find anything . . . " You didn't hunt too hard. I was able to source three other TV shows he has been a part of in the first page of google. Granted he's not a huge star, maybe he's not that good, but he is appearing multiple times a week on a nightly TV show that has been on the air for almost 6 months. Prior to that, he had TV and stand up comedy credentials including winning the Get Up, Stand Up competition, which probably put him on Comedy Central's radar for the assignment as contributor. But please, don't try to get credit for another article deletion based on a disingenuous statement. Trackinfo (talk) 07:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I, too, did a search on Google but the sources I found (Splitsider, Youtube, Facebook, Comedy Central) are not third-party neutral sources of information (he's employed by CC, Splitsider is some guy's personal web site). Trackinfo, do you have an RS for the award? The site listed seems to be a comedy venue (their web site is a bit vague), which again would not be a RS. I did find one newspaper article [44] but it's just a mention. LaMona (talk) 00:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You do need to consider the normal mean of publicity in each industry. Just as any University would post a resume of the professors they hire, a comedy club would post a resume of the comedians they are booking, to attract an audience. Unless somebody is big, you aren't going to find a write up in the NYT. We have already established this guy is small potatoes. Comedy Central is in the same boat, they are hiring performers and promoting performers. Among the sources not included, this guy has (actually more than one) booking contacts, meaning an agent. He's out there doing performances or that wouldn't exist. he's booked in a comedy club in NY this week and at the end of the month, presumably when he is in town doing the Nightly Show. They are selling tickets, so he's not a nobody begging for mike time. He wouldn't be on Comedy Central if he was. OK, taking from the statements in the Standup NY bio, he performs at Carolines [http://www.carolines.com/comedian/the-big-show/ check, Comedy Store check, Rascals check and not the club's site, but a general local entertainment site, Mohegan Sun check, Improv check, add [Magooby's, Wisecrackers. Yeah, there is the obvious pattern of them repeating the same bio. He's not big time enough to get a rewrite at each club, but this certainly proves he is working and gets around, and that the claims in the bio are not B.S. Looking at a bigger name, parallel comedian on the same circuit when he's not on TV Ron Funches, the article is not much better, just more layout of TV appearances. Trackinfo (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I find this a borderline case at the moment. RS mentions can be found of Yard as a standup headliner, such as [45] and [46]. He is a regular performer on a fairly high-profile nightly program that's getting considerable press attention. His appearances on The Nightly Show are also getting mentions, notably this Los Angeles Times article about his "Hand Gun" character [47]. Here's a profile and interview in a British publication of uncertain RS status called Flavourmag.[48] Village Voice/New Times reviewer Inkoo Kang recently wrote about him as "a great foil in MVP contributor Mike Yard, a grumpface who sounds like a Muppet and hails from the Virgin Islands".[49][50] I suspect that if he isn't yet notable, it's likely only a matter of time. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Close as delete. As indicated, process is to delete incorrectly created disamb pages. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nested (disambiguation)

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

Red link. Article should be written first, and then the WP:Disambiguation page. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G6 ("a disambiguation page that only links to one extant article and whose title includes '(disambiguation)'"). I'd also add that even if/when the second article is created, no disambiguation page is needed or should be created. With only two articles, it should be handled via a hatnote; see WP:TWODABS. TJRC (talk) 01:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ or redirect to Nest (disambiguation). Odd creation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with bd2412 below. Plausible, and redirects are cheap. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nest (disambiguation). It is highly plausible that someone could look for something that is "nested" without having the obscure album in mind. bd2412 T 03:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G6. Who's going to type in "Nested (disambiguation)"? ~~If you really must, then a hatnote in Nested to Nest (disambiguation) would be a better alternative, but I don't like either option.~~ Nested is already listed in the See also section of Nest (disambiguation). That's just right. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nest (disambiguation) as a good compromise. These entries can be "nested" there until/unless a separate disambiguation becomes necessary. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by User:Anthony Bradbury under WP:G11. Bosstopher (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Robin Bladimir

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

Only sources are from the same unreliable website, which fail to establish notability. Conifer (talk) 01:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Universe Model 2009

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

Mister Universe Model deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Men Universe Model Flat Out (talk) 00:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable pageant fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 00:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the parent article has already been deleted--Ymblanter (talk) 06:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Universe Model 2010

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

Mister Universe Model deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Men Universe Model Flat Out (talk) 00:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable pageant fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 00:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the parent article has already been deleted--Ymblanter (talk) 06:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Universe Model 2008

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

Mister Universe Model deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Men Universe Model Flat Out (talk) 00:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable pageant fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 00:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the parent article has already been deleted--Ymblanter (talk) 06:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Universe Model 2012

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

Mister Universe Model deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Men Universe Model Flat Out (talk) 00:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable pageant fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 00:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the parent article has already been deleted--Ymblanter (talk) 06:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Universe Model 2011

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

Mister Universe Model deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Men Universe Model Flat Out (talk) 00:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable pageant fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 00:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the parent article has already been deleted--Ymblanter (talk) 06:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Men Universe Model India

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

selects competitors for non-notable pageant Mister Universe Model deleted at AfD. Flat Out (talk) 00:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable pageant fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 00:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the parent article has already been deleted--Ymblanter (talk) 06:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Men Universe Model country rankings

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

Men Universe Model deleted at AfD as a non-notable pageant Flat Out (talk) 00:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable pageant fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 00:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, absolutely no basis for this to exist if the parent article has been deleted as nonnotable. postdlf (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Men Universe Model 2014

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

Men Universe Model deleted at AfD as a non-notable pageant Flat Out (talk) 00:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable pageant fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 00:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the parent article has already been deleted--Ymblanter (talk) 06:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Men Universe Model 2013

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

Men Universe Model deleted at AfD as a non-notable pageant Flat Out (talk) 00:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable pageant fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 00:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the parent article has already been deleted--Ymblanter (talk) 06:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HCW Kamehameha Heritage Championship

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

Championship of a small pro wrestling federation Sismarinho (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable pageant fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 00:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hawai'i Championship Wrestling. Nikki♥311 04:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if the company owning the belt isn't notable, the belt can't be more important. starship.paint ~ KO 09:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "About the National Labs". Energy.gov. Retrieved 16 July 2015.

[2] "Mo-99 Shortage" (PDF).

[3] "Rules And Eligibility for Short Film Awards At The Oscars". Oscars.org. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Retrieved 17 July 2015.

[4] "Oscars short films qualifying festival list" (PDF). Oscars.org. Retrieved 17 July 2015.

[1]

[1]

[1]

[2]