Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 July 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 July	26 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 delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Governing Past Dues

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

The article starts out with a lie: The "debut studio album released by Greg Hardy" was anything but released by Hardy. Rather, someone else released it under Hardy's name without his approval. Quote Hardy: "Don't go buy this crap someone stole my old stuff & threw some BS edits on it & put it out pretending to be with me." Thus the article would have to be rewritten almost entirely to become correct.Untruths related to this album had been added to the article on Hardy, too. However, I see no indication that, apart from the buzz surrounding the release under false pretenses, the album comes close to meeting Wikipedia's standards of notability. Rather, the article is part of a campaign to promote DJ Many whose article was deleted about eight times, last in April following a deletion discussion. Huon (talk) 23:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax as written, and non-notable if rewritten. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 21:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing to suggest better improvement and notability with News and browser finding mostly these news links. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax Azealia911 _talk 18:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax - or rather - the spreading of a hoax. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:39, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rockford Lhotka

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and fails to state a reason the subject should be considered notable in lieu of sources under WP:ANYBIO. Googling turned up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (unfortunately no good target for moving elsewhere as the only linking article is "List of programmers") - My searches found nothing particularly good here (Books also found mostly authored books), here and here. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promo advert, no claim to notability in the article Kraxler (talk) 02:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No substantial coverage from reliable sources offered or to be found. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 21:35, 1 August 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Fuller

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

Non-notable author. Wrote a single book. Was unable to find any secondary source coverage. agtx 21:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 22:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 22:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing to suggest better improvement and notability with passing mentions here and here (best results I found). SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fuller published his book 34 years ago, but it has not recieved widespread and significant coverage. He is not at present notable. If over the next year a huge amount of coverage in reliable sources of his work occurs, Fuller may become notable. But he is not now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Rasul Zarrin

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

Person may exist but sources are blogs and forums with repetition of same comparison between Zarrin and Kyle. A number of sources are in Non-English language. Cannot see any independent sources that verify claims being made. Londonclanger (talk) 21:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Iranian state is a military dictatorship and predicates its power upon mythologizing military "heroes" on frequently dubious merits. See e.g. [1][2] etc. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Yet all references on this article are worthless state-propaganda sources and user-generated forums posts.--Anders Feder (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Anders Feder.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 22:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 22:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 22:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - given the subject (of snipers) often receives fairly wide coverage in the popular media I'd have expected to find something about him fairly easily at least (even despite not being from a Western / English speaking nation). There is a bit in low quality web sources (Instagram, Facebook, blogs etc) but nothing I think would qualify as WP:RS. Google books didn't reveal any coverage in dead tree sources either. As such as near as I can tell the subject is not notable per WP:GNG. Given the issues highlighted by Anders Feder above I'd have to question whether the sources that do exist are accurate at any rate. Anotherclown (talk) 23:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With no doubt, this entry is a propaganda by the Iranian government and should be deleted. Esmatly (talk) 20:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article typifies Iranian state propaganda. There would most certainly be a plethora of reliable sources (or at least some) if the claims were even partly true. Elspamo4 (talk) 05:58, 29 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. Sandstein 09:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Khabrain Abhi Tak

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

No indication of importance, doesn't seem to meet notability. Itsalleasy (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 16:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 16:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - That author has been starting several TV channel articles and it's to think several may be notable, I'm not finding any good sources to suggest better improvement and notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to fail WP:BROADCAST, there is no mention of a licence, and it is broadcast only in some regions, the article here may have been created with the intention to promote the channel, they are certainly trying to get added to cable or satellite dish networks, according to trheir website Kraxler (talk) 03:09, 1 August 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Academy for Contemporary Problems

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

This does not appear to meet GNG. I can only find things that have been written by it, rather than about it.Gilderien Chat|Contributions 18:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just added a clarification: notable in a specialized field because it contributed to the establishment of a historically-important early computer animation studio in an unusual location (Columbus, OH) through its policy recommendations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N1ckFG (talk • contribs) 22:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but maybe mention at one of the related articles (joint ventures) and therefore redirect, as my searches found nothing particularly outstanding here, here, here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 14:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It closed years ago, was never notable by our standards, and is unlikely to be used as a search term. Bearian (talk) 13:33, 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 redirect to John Newman (singer). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revolve (John Newman album)

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

Poorly contested proposed deletion. I believe it is simply too soon for this topic to have an article. Laun chba ller 20:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 21:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON with no prejudice against recreation at such a time that WP:NALBUMS is satisfied. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 21:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or preferably redirect to John Newman as it's only a few months until it's released with my searches finding several news links but indeed not much for an article yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON Azealia911 _talk 18:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to John Newman for now. Aria1561 (talk) 17:06, 31 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. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 03:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Plowden

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

WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as a member of a judicial selection committee, resting on two primary sources and one passing namecheck of his existence as a quotegiver in a BBC news article which fails to be about him — thus not sourced adequately to satisfy WP:GNG. Delete unless the sourcing can be significantly beefed up. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The first dozen or so words of the nomination strongly suggest that the nominator does not quite know what he is talking about in this case. The Judicial Appointments Commission is responsible for appointing most senior judges in England and, while membership of it is in itself unlikely to guarantee notability, it is the kind of body where one only becomes a member if one is already very much part of the British Establishment and likely (though not certain) not only to be notable already for something else, but continue to get more very well-paid jobs requiring relatively little work but a lot of legal responsibility for the actions of one's subordinates, with further opportunities for gaining notability. In this case, the subject seems to be somewhat self-effacing, and references to him seem to get hidden among more numerous ones to his namesake Francis Plowden (barrister) - but I suspect that someone using this CV for extra search terms and prepared to do quite a bit of searching could quite possibly find enough reliable (though possibly only moderately substantial) sources to establish notability. PWilkinson (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd request that you not cast aspersions on my degree of "knowing what I'm talking about". The committee is absolutely notable enough that a properly sourced article about Plowden could be kept — but it's not a role that confers any automatic entitlement to keep an article regardless of the quality of sourcing present. My nomination made clear that I'm perfectly willing to withdraw this if the sourcing can be repaired. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG. Has, in particular, an article in A & C Black's Who's Who, which is conclusive proof of notability. I think he can be taken to satisfy PROF as his book "The State Under Stress" has 213 citations (ie 144 + 67 + 2) according to GScholar (on a search for "f j plowden". James500 (talk) 23:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do think this should be moved to Francis John Plowden, his actual name, and the barrister, who seems more famous, moved to the present location of this article. James500 (talk) 04:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If he's not known as Francis John Plowden then the article shouldn't use that as a title. This is a long-established principle of Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Who calls him "Francis John Plowden", as do other sources such as a symposium from Fordham University. I am not convinced the other name is overwhelmingly more common, at least once you except official publications. IIRC, COMMONNAME states that there are other criteria for choosing an article title (such as accuracy and avoiding confusion) and that it carries no greater weight than the others. James500 (talk) 03:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WW always uses full names. Although sometimes it parenthesises names that aren't used, more usually it does not. The guidelines actually quite clearly state that full names should not be used just for disambiguation purposes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Not advised" implies an element of discretion and does not mean "forbidden", and even that is qualified by "not commonly" which I construe as meaning "almost never". And it says nothing about accuracy. The fact a particular source always uses full names doesn't seem to me to affect its weight. I think it preferable, unless some other name is obviously much more common, to use the full name than to carry out a potentially very difficult, if not impossible, statistical analysis of which name is used most. James500 (talk) 10:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is forbidden. This is Wikipedia. However, you will find that consensus is very much not to use middle names unless they are clearly used other than in an encyclopaedia of biography which obviously uses them. This has been decided over the course of numerous RM discussions and you will find that if you move the article it will very rapidly be moved back unless you can find sources that clearly show he is referred to by his full name in everyday usage as opposed to official usage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the article doesn't say it, he was also chairman of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre and has held various other significant posts, which I think push him over the notability bar. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has held or holds a number of important board level positions as shown on this page and has an entry in A & C Black's Who's Who, and I believe he is notable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:11, 30 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, per WP:GEOLAND. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 14:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chunati

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

Fails to meet the requirement Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, reluctantly. According to this BBS census table, there is a Chunati village in Chunati Union, Lohagara Upazila, Chittagong District, Chittagong Division, Bangladesh. Wikipedia functions as a gazetteer, so according to the common deletion outcomes for villages I don't see how it can be deleted. The content is unsourced nonsense, and can be blanked. According to the 2011 census, the population is 20,364, split almost evenly, 49.8% male and 50.2% female. Literacy is 50.2%, slightly below the national average. Worldbruce (talk) 06:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:47, 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 merge to Rio Ferdinand. Davewild (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2Sides

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

Not a particularly notable book. Any residual effects the release caused can easily be mentioned on the main Rio Ferdinand article. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe redirect to Rio Ferdinand (although it mentions David Winner, it seems to be mostly in Rio's name) while my searches found results here, here and here, there's not much to suggest improvement and good notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NBOOK, see this, this, this, this and this. Kraxler (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rio Ferdinand. What little content there is easily fits there. Maybe spin out later if there is more content. Sandstein 09:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content to Rio Ferdinand, very little info to justify article. Pincrete (talk) 11:31, 2 August 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. Questionable material has been removed, and even the sole !delete vote concedes that she's notable. Content should be discussed elsewhere. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 15:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Carter

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

Not notable per WP:BIO -- run of the mill business exec. Lots of info not supported by citations, appears to have been edited by the subject herself, and citations included in the article tangentially support the material at best. Yl098098 (talk) 17:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Several references in current version of article (July 13 2015) meet WP:RS, plus there are numerous more references here including in-depth treatment as well as quotations. Article is a bit long but that is not a reason for deletion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - there is some evidence of notability, but the current article is still a mess, even after I copy-edited. Bearian (talk) 13:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and (possibly) rewrite - I think this individual is probably notable, but the current article and its history cannot be kept. The current version appears to be largely copied from this source. Previous versions also contain apparent copyvio - compare this version with this source, for example. I don't see evidence that these sources have been appropriately licensed for reuse. As far as I can tell, there is some degree of copyvio going back to the first revision, although it was less blatant then. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have removed copyvio material which was also promotional. There appears to be consensus that the refs establish notability. ~Kvng (talk) 17:36, 31 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WOMAD Sri Lanka 2005

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

This orphaned article lacks notability. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Either poorly sourced or poorly written, it may be notable but in its current state it should be deleted.--Blackknight12 (talk) 12:38, 27 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 redirect to Midway Games#Pinball. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corvette (pinball)

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

Previously kept from an AfD in 2008, but frankly, I have no idea how (that was a series of some of the weakest keeps I've ever seen.) The article remains essentially as it did then; showing precisely 0 evidence of this pinball table being notable, and nor does a Google search; all you can validate is that it exists, bar one Corvette Online piece - which, although in-depth, is hardly a great case for there being notability here, because Corvette Online will cover anything Corvette related. Even disregarding that, one source does not equal passing GNG. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 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 14:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Midway_Games#Pinball, where it is mentioned in the list and can be a useful search term. Otherwise, no depth of coverage. There's a bit more in the unreliable pinball db, but I haven't seen any leads for reviews for this thing. Please {{ping}} me if non-English or offline sources are found. – czar 16:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:45, 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 no consensus. At this point, even with the keep !vote, I'd say at best this is a contested PROD. With it being relisted twice, I see no reason to continue this debate by relisting a third time. No issues with speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 15:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Malacca Gallery (Malaysia)

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

Fails WP:ORG. Did a few searches in its Malay name but nothing indepth just directory listings. LibStar (talk) 15:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it's not in my fairly new guidebooks. Bearian (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added another reference from the local municipal council website. Chongkian (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you haven't explained how it meets notability. The article has a mere 2 sources. The municipal source you've added is not in depth. LibStar (talk) 18:36, 30 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agricultural Museum (Malaysia)

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

Fails WP:ORG. Insufficient indepth coverage LibStar (talk) 15:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another 8 references have been added (including 6 from Utusan Online websites and 1 from the city council website). Chongkian (talk) 01:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

references 1 to 9 merely confirm existence of the museum. LibStar (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:59, 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 14:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 13:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hey is just an essay. Whilst it looks like a lot of sources, 1-10 merely confirms existence of the gallery. LibStar (talk) 15:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep In general, a Museum is notable. WP:N says "Nationally well-known local organizations: Some organizations are local in scope, but have achieved national or even international notice. Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or club) can be considered notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, consider adding a section on the organization to an article on the organization's local area instead." - there are ten different sources which confirm it's notability, which also show "wide spread coverage", and importance. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 16:02, 1 August 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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Times of Assam

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

Doesn't meet notability requirements of WP:WEB. Some of the references don't even mention the Times of Assam. -- haminoon (talk) 06:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:WEB ("...has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works..."). This seems to be the only non-trivial mention, as all other coverage I could find are passing mentions or re-posts of Times of Assam articles. Daß Wölf (talk) 03:35, 2 August 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don Nicholas (publisher)

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

Single trivial mention on a NYT article about Playboy - fails WP:BIO. Everything else is a dead link, about the company, or non-reliable sources. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable, and sources are either impossible to verify, SPS, or trivial, as mentioned by nom. — Brianhe (talk) 17:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable, fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total lack of indepth coverage needed to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - spectacularly fails WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 14:29, 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 merge and redirect to Assington. (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dorking Tye

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

Cannot find a single mention of it in anything except 'Dorking Tye House' and is not listed on OS maps. Would normally merge with civil parish it falls within but, as the location cannot be established, it's best deleted. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 23:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On closer inspection it is the work of the infamous sockpuppet Crouch, Swale. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 23:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking evidence of in depth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge + redirect to Assington - it's a small hamlet but a hamlet, and I think place locales are usually notable, aren't they? [3] "This parish includes the hamlets of Rose Green, Dorking Tye and a number of fertile farmsteads." [4] —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well done for finding that source! I agree, just could not find any reliable references pointing it to Assington myself. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 16:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly think you could just boldly merge it to Assington. I can't see any compelling argument to keep it. Based on the map, it appears to be only a few houses. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:29, 14 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, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in to Assington - Can't find anything notability-wise but seems better to merge than delete. –Davey2010^Talk 14:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question - is an English hamlet "legally recognized" under WP:GEOLAND #1 ? If not, merge to Assington. Kraxler (talk) 14:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kraxler: I'm not from the UK, but I think it depends on potential content. A hamlet of 30 houses/buildings could support its own article since England has so many historic buildings and records. A hamlet that was mentioned in the Domesday book would be notable for example. This hamlet seems to have withered away to about four structures, based upon my Google Maps snooping, and was never prominent enough to be noted much. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. The question is a rather technical one. Under WP:GEOLAND any "legally recognized" inhabitated place has a legal wiki-right to have it's own article. I think a hamlet is a "de facto" place, while "legally recognized" places in England begin at town or city level but I don't live in England either, so I wouldn't know. Kraxler (talk) 13:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not sure if hamlets are legally recognized. Hamlet (place)#United Kingdom says they have no "legal definition" but I'm not sure about the recognition part. I would guess as far as WP is concrened, they are equivalent to neighborhoods, and would need to meet GNG. I know I've seen good articles on hamlets though, so I'm guessing GNG applies. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've already merged the relevant info. There doesn't seem to be any support or argument to keep this article. I'm just going to boldly redirect it. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
New close as a redirect -- There is no legal definition of or status for a hamlet in England. In some areas there are townships, but they are not necesarily notable. The result of Wikimandia's merger is that e now just have a redirect. that is the appropriate outcome. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 1 August 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 09:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Transforming Faces

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

no evidence of notability; this is apparently a promotional articles for the charity. DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 19:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, moved to Transforming Faces per OTRS ticket 2015062910019478. Nakon 04:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ORG for lack of significant coverage by reliable independent sources. The article provides a single source, offline so we can't evaluate it. In a search I found only press releases and unrelated hits. --MelanieN (talk) 02:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See links below. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 13:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Search for "Transforming Faces" at the Toronto Star had several mentions [5] and one with more coverage [6]. Currently cited 2005 article preview is here [7]. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 19:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any coverage beyond that Toronto Star article and a handful of mentions. Sam Walton (talk) 08:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are more mentions. PubMed: "In recent years the situation has been significantly improved through the intervention of Non Governmental Organisations such as SmileTrain and Transforming Faces Worldwide participating in primary surgical repair programmes." [8] and some others [9] [10] [11] [12]. Plus links on Cleft palate organizations: [13] [14]. I realize this might not be enough for some to !vote keep, but I put the bar lower for charities than for commercial organizations. The article needs work to avoid PROMO, but that can be tagged and the article improved. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 13:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There was a ten-minute radio interview on the canadian version of NPR, which I think has not yet been mentioned.[15] Charity-benefit-cinema in 2014 for the entity.[16] There was a burst of WP:NOTEWORTHY mentions in protest of a poor remake-movie.[17][18][19] This is the Toronto Star, not sure if it is the same as the ones mentioned above, which covers the first recipient of a new program the charity introduced.[20][21] Same story, mentions two visits/surgeries were needed in 2011/2012.[22] Related story with mention of the big event, about financing such surgeries.[23] Maybe-WP:noteworthy mention as part of the obit of one of the senior advisors to the charity, but title of page says this was paid obit, so maybe does not count as wp:rs.[24] Counting the radio-interview, and glomming together the toronto star articles, we have a couple sources with decent depth. Does the charity-benefit-theater with proceeds going to Transforming Faces count? Kinda sorta. The burst of Cavendish-the-villian-related coverage has little depth, but does show that the charity is not ignored by the press, when something relevant arises. Seems like a case where notability is unclear, and maybe merging-n-redirect into a more generic parent article is the way WP:FAILN suggests... but which article would it be a subsection within? Cleft palate charity and facial reconstruction charity do not exist; maybe medical charities for children? Merging the content into a more-highly-trafficked generic article will also help cut down on puffery and WP:SPIP, methinks, but I don't know what the generic article might be, if so. We do have some in-depth coverage, so deletion/userfication seems the wrong way to go, per WP:PRESERVE. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep The Toronto Star article previously mentioned positively in a delete rationale is one of the two sources I see reaching WP:ORG, the other is the ParentsCanada article. I say weak, because the Toronto Star articles URL check at the bottom gives me a bit of pause about the neutrality of the article, but the Toronto Star is IME a pretty reliable source, and ParentsCanada appears to be a less known source, but a published magazine with an editorial process. But I think it's just past the bar. --j⚛e decker ^talk 23:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, perhaps I'm a bit of a soft touch when it comes to charities, but I think the Toronto Star coverage plus the other sources mentioned probably just push this past the notability bar. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:52, 2 August 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. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 15:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nahim Marun

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

Possibly non-notable musician with my searches only finding results here and here, the sources in the article could better especially as many of them are basic links which is what concerns me the most (I would've kept the article if it wasn't for the sourcing issues). I hope we can get some Brazilians familiar with this if possible as the article has existed since May 2007 (started by subject) and has had zero improvement since. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: From major sources, I got this and this. Not complete stories, just some shows announcements. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 16:47, 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 13:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:34, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chapman Partnership

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

Non-notable (at least to Wiki standards) and my searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) and here and here with mostly local articles and I'm sure searches at local news sources would find more but I'm not sure if this would even be locally notable. SwisterTwister talk 23:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:38, 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 13:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also appreciate input with this one, DGG. SwisterTwister talk 00:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability, probably not even indication of significance -- and could have been deleted via speedy A7 DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 26 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. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

William Tannen

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

I nominated this page for deletion. It lacks references or reliable sources. I can't find anything on this person that is verifiable. It's written like a puff piece and was tagged years ago, and has had no improvements since then. There's no mention of this person in any reference materials that I could find. Leoniana 22:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: I have updated this page and added it to the current AfD list. -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 16:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's lots of mentions. I couldn't quickly find substantial pieces though. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
- Be aware their is a film with a character called William Tannen, and also William Tannen (actor). Also be aware that this William may sometimes be Bill. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  - "IT WAS A VERY GOOD YEAR FOR BILLTANNEN! Bill Tannen, Director, EUE/SCREEN GEMS Bill Tannen is on a roll. Since joining EUE/Screen Gems, he has been winning both clients and awards. If repeat business means anything, Bill.... " this looks like a substantial ref, snippet view though. Art Direction, Vol 39, pp 34-5? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 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 13:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:32, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ramble Underground Fiction & Poetry

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

Defunct online literary magazine fails WP:NWEB. Prod contested in 2008. Vrac (talk) 14:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of USA-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 15:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 15:45, 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 12:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete refs in article are dead links, website is off, circulation was 4,500, according to this, no coverage in independent sources Kraxler (talk) 16:11, 1 August 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) 21:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Peace & Freedom Band

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

Nominating on behalf of 87.112.176.188, who proposed deletion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion with the comment: "No references for the last 2 years, the only ones I could find in a search were obscure blogs." As nominator I am neutral unless I comment below. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 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 12:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched a lot but found nothing aside from a passing mention in a questionable book [25]. Fails WP:V and WP:BAND. Everymorning talk 19:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's nothing here and my searches found nothing particularly good aside from two links. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agreed with those above. None of the members are themselves notable, none of their several albums appear to have charted, and there is practically no info available in the usual places except for Wikipedia mirrors and fan blogs. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:19, 27 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. Can be userfied on request by users without a conflict of interest. Sandstein 09:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mountainviews

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

I don't believe this website is notable. Although the secondary sources use it as a source, they aren't about the site. I had originally tagged this for prod, and have removed the tag because the page creator is opposed to deletion. They have made their comments at talk:Mountainviews. Agtx (talk) 14:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 15:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 15:42, 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 12:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and draft/userfy as my searches found nothing particularly good to improve sourcing and notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 27 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Systems, Inc.

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

Fails WP:ORG. No significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. This is an ad, not an article. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 05:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches found absolutely nothing good to suggest improvement or notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Clearly promotional. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 16:04, 1 August 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. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Moon

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

Largely uncited claims ("today the terms are used on anything") and random supposed notable things - like fitting an engine into a car. Not to mention uncited peacock words about "historic", "internationally recognized", his level of showmanship, etc.

If anything, this article can be saved by being retrofitted into an article on the company, Mooneyes(?) (also written as Moon or MOONEYES), not Dean Moon. JesseRafe (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found some more references and did a bit of editorial work. I think that this person is notable, although some better sources should be available from car/hot rod-oriented magazines, which I don't have access to. However, a good article about him and his work shows in a BBC publication, and LA Times gave him a (short) obit. The article does need work. LaMona (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but the article does need work as LaMona pointed out. Sofiamar (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Admittedly this article was of poor quality and perhaps didn't demonstrate the notability of the subject, but other sources do demonstrate notability. All the article needs is some work. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:42, 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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The UrbanWire

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

While as a magazine and one that has been mentioned at the other articles (see "what links here"), I can't find any good sources (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) to improve the article aside from here and here. The first nomination had keep votes saying it was notable but without good sources, I can't see any improvememt and at best the article could be shortened again to a few sentences or so (this article could also not be moved to Ngee Ann as it's not exactly connected to it, simply the former students). SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Care to comment? SwisterTwister talk 22:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence whatsoever of notability, and no reason to expect any. In fact, it doesn't even claim anything except very local importance: " one of the most often refreshed youth e-zinea in Singapore" is not the same as "most important..." or "most widely read ..." . I would certainly support a change in our guidelines to permit--even require-- an article for anything used as a RS in WP, but I do not see how this is even a RS. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 26 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. Davewild (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Garden-Raised Bounty (GRuB)

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

good work but nn, no independent sources Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - I appreciate the sources added and the mission is very good but my searches found nothing particularly outstanding here, here, here and here. Also looking at the age and edit consistency of the article, there's not much weight to convince keeping the article. SwisterTwister talk 06:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promo advert, WP:BOMBARDed with unreliable/questionable/not independent sources. Kraxler (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bombard. I was busy with other things, so I thought I'd just dump as many refs as I could find and let others sort out the good ones. There are plenty for the article to pass GNG. Being promotional is not a good AfD rationale. Strip it down to a single lead sentence if you want and add the 4 best refs and that alone should be enough for it to pass GNG. Anna F remote (talk) 00:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing among the refs is good enough to pass WP:GNG, it's directory listings, trivial mentions, press releases, dependent sources, and a very few pieces of very restricted local routine coverage. WP:PROMO is one of the best AfD rationales, it's not a guideline, it's Wiki policy, it says: "Those promoting causes or events...even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so." This organization is a minor local common-or-garden activism group, trying to promote their cause, drumming up donations, but they are not notable. Kraxler (talk) 13:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although I agree with the above that there is a bombardment of questionable sources, there does seem to be some wheat amongst the chaff, like this and this. A close eye will have to be kept on it to make sure it's not turned into advertising, but I think this squeaks over the notability bar. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Reads thoroughly promotional, I'm not impressed by the sources. Sandstein 09:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SisterTwister. Subject is not sufficiently independently notable.Pincrete (talk) 11:38, 2 August 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kill System

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

While it has three somewhat notable members, it fails WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about the many associated acts? I believe, that I can find another reference somewhere (That's not in Spanish, cause that's all could find). --Metalworker14 (Yo) 13:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

They're interesting but do not confer notability. Can any RSes be found to support it? Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm not sure, but someone found a reference and put them on List of Christian metal artists.--Metalworker14 (Yo) 22:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Simply not notable as my searches found nothing good with this being the best result. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: This article does have some merits per BAND, while their is no sources, where it makes this article a major problem with regards to GNG, meaning it should go away.The Cross Bearer (talk) 09:21, 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 no consensus. Another two weeks have passed without any addition to the discussion. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paulo Pinheiro

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

Curriculum vitae for non-notable scientist. damiens.rf 17:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google scholar shows 7 publications with over 100 citations each (all I believe by the subject) and an h-index of 22, enough to show significant contributions to the subject and I think enough to pass WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Citation_metrics, citation metrics alone, let alone citation metrics from Google, are probably not sufficient to establish notability. In addition, the policy does not give any numeric value for highly cited -- which is frustrating. I looked at some well-known scientists, and their ground-breaking articles are cited in the thousands or tens of thousands of times, not the hundreds. [26], [27]. From my reading, it looks like this person is primarily known for having developed a markup language, but he did that with a group of scholars at Stanford, so it's hard to know what his contribution was. One of his co-authors on that project has documents that have been cited more than 4K times, and journal articles cited in the high three digits, as a comparison.[28]. I think this is less than a slam-dunk, and don't see anything extraordinary about this researcher. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. LaMona (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm seeing some quite possible wp:COI due to the preponderance of SPA's on both the Pinheiro and Provenance Markup Language pages, including User:Pp3223. LaMona (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. User:LaMona seems to be reading Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Citation_metrics in a sense pretty much contrary to what I read it as saying. It fairly clearly accepts citation metrics as an admittedly somewhat imperfect method of establishing notability through measuring academic impact and is mainly concerned with allowing for these imperfections - for instance, taking account of differing expected citation rates in different subjects and, where these rates are low, supplementing or replacing them by other methods of measuring impact. What seems to be the general consensus does not expect citation rates to be at the astronomical levels that User:LaMona cites, but rather at the kind of level where a beginning postgraduate in a related subject at an institution without direct connections with the academic concerned might be expected to come across mentions of them. In this case, I note that the subject of the article actually seems to have slightly higher citation rates than any of the most recent Fields Medallists - and, while I would expect slightly higher citation rates in computer science than in mathematics, I am still inclined to agree with User:David Eppstein that the subject's rates are still at least adequate for notability. Having said that, I do share User:LaMona's concerns about WP:COI - the article as it stands is somewhat over-promotional and, together with the creator's username, this does suggest the possibility of WP:AUTOBIO. If the article is kept, we do not need every detail of his qualifications, career and relatives. PWilkinson (talk) 13:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:26, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ApparelnBags

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Really close to being speedy for G11. agtx 18:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7, G11. The "sources" are just spam profiles for the company on various websites (even academia.edu, how novel!). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 06:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable for an article with my searches finding nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above editors. I did a large overhaul on the article and I don't even think that was nearly enough. Simply not notable. Sulfurboy (talk) 01:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have also gone ahead and nominated it for G11. No reason for this AfD in my opinion. Sulfurboy (talk) 01:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with an argument echoing Qwertyus. I'd support expediting the AfD but not speedy delete as such—it doesn't currently meet the G11 criterion. Disclosure: acting as an admin, I've removed the speedy deletion template from the article. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 03:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sporting Hares

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

Standard searches did not reveal enough significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the company. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 14:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Nothing found to establish the company's notability. Philg88 ^♦talk 16:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My searches found nothing particularly good with this probably being the best result. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 27 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. Sandstein 09:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Medford knife and tool

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

Although Variation 25.2 has made some edits to try and cut down the promotional content, this still fails WP:CORPDEPTH and should be deleted. agtx 17:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Medford Knives is a knife maker similar to Chris Reeves and deserves a site similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Reeve_Knives — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmatthieu (talk • contribs) 17:26, 25 July 2015 — Cmatthieu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Yes, that billboard should probably be deleted too. Reyk _YO! 20:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At least that one is referenced.Peter Rehse (talk) 05:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG Delete Content is not encyclopedic, advertising reverted - article is unsourced, no notability established. The "no mexicans" comment in the # of employees section is particularly troublesome. A four year old company with 22 employees does not meet WP:GNG Scr★pIron^IV 20:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although this might be notable, there has been no significant non-promotional material added to this article during its lifetime. Even the background information on the proprietor is of dubious relevance. I worry that it will always be a stub or continually reverting to promotional junk.Lucas559 (talk) 01:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Delete~~ This could/should have been speedy deleted as Promo. Unreferenced and with an unacceptable tone for an encyclopedia.Peter Rehse (talk) 05:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello all, In view of the problems that were presented in the article, I wrote my own article on the subject which I hope will meet the requirements professions. let me know what you think! thank you Eytankey (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article was a copy and paste from Draft:Medford knife And tool whose submission was declined for the same issues with the exception that this one at least has references. It is still heavily promotional and written in POV way - BUT far better than the article it replaced. I am changing my vote from Speedy delete to plain delete and am hoping that further edits will allow me to change my mind once again.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thank you peter, the Draft:Medford knife And tool is mine,and working hard to improve it! give me a day or two Eytankey (talk) 17:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please address notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

? Eytankey (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Refs are not significant. Blatant advertising Velella ^{Velella Talk}

How come this is advertising and other commercial companies articles are not? please explain - thank you; Some of this article Refs are recommended by Wikipedia:WikiProject Blades Eytankey (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seriously not a pass for WP:CORP. Depends on far too many primary and/or unreliable sources. Fiddle Faddle 14:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment disagree, how well are you familiar with the sources that you can determine that they are unreliable? Eytankey (talk) 16:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that we now also have Medford knife And tool as an article, and in far better shape than the one we are discussing here Fiddle Faddle 21:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unacceptable work around - gaming the system and is actually not that different in content with the article being discussed here. More to the point is the edit summaries state that it was an accepted version which is not the case. I am putting the article up for Db-same speedy deletion - any improvements should be done to this article at the very least to maintain edit history.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was probably accidental acceptance, performed by a very new reviewer, albeit an experienced editor. Fiddle Faddle 21:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are probably right. I have interacted with User:Mike Searson from way back and don't expect that behaviour from him on purpose. His clean-up of the And version should be applied to this article.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

response posted User:Mike Searson clean up on this page, I think It is fine, and we can end this saga. I understand the importance of refs but the cold weapons is not as rich in refs as middle eastern history (for example)...let us start with that, and with the wiki blade project we will add more custom cold weapons makers to the list like RMJ, fulvio del tin ect. Eytankey (talk) 22:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD debate still needs to run its course considering the number of comments generated. My main objections have been addressed so I am removing (not switching to keep) my delete vote. I would still like to see something in the article which speaks to notability (ie. why is the company special).Peter Rehse (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep 1. Whoever looks at the issue of deletion should take attention that the original article has been replaced; Entire text of whoever wrote the initial article originally replaced by my text and therefore one must consider that and ignore the comments before the article update as they relate to the old text.

2. This company is unique, but the refs for that are not discuss what was considered proper source; Without getting into what is considered proper source of the current era and in the field of cold weapons, there is room for many cold weapons firms Wikipedia. It is THE encyclopedia, and there is room for a wide range of fields as long as they are properly documented. Its uniqueness - noted - has been removed because it is considered to be promotional Eytankey (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did not know that there was an existing article or that it was up for deletion (found out when someone took my name in vain over here!). Early this week, someone pinged me with a request to look at a Draft and having some area of expertise in the area, I cleaned it up, used reliable sources and stripped out what could be considered by some as advertorial terms. It passed muster to me, this is a notable up and coming company in the knife industry that has received a fair amount of coverage.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article has been improved and reliable neutral third party sources have been added.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request: please remove those tags form the article: ; the article is not orphan since I posted new version at 29 July, It has been categorized. thank you Eytankey (talk) 06:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys I know everyone likes to be smart and wax rhapsodic and all but frankly I'm a bit taken aback by the level of somewhat arbitrary critique. In fact I think much of what has been leveled against this post is literarily and technically accurate, but not in keeping with latitude afforded so many other entries. I have really never used Wiki. for anything but after reading the critique leveled here I searched and parused several other listings in my industry. All I can say is that the listing or post here is generally on par with the others in the industry. As a company? The work we have done for "NSW" is discreet and I have always maintained that discretion. We are listed in several books ranging from CIA Tell-All's and smoke jumpers survival accounts to Brandon Webb's last book as a "company that makes knives that should be part of every war-fighter's kit." (Somewhat paraphrased) We are screen credited on the movie "Phantom" for providing knives and featured in magazines and printed publication from all over the planet...never 1 single advertisement as of today. In our 5 year history we have made 2 dagger models for the guys who neutralized Bin Laden, machetes for TraDet, have an official USMC approved EOD Knife/tool like nothing in the industry and actually make 100% of our knives in house. This year we will make over 10,000 knives and are significantly larger than many of the subjects (companies) listed here. Again, no advertising ever. Not sure how exactly you think we should be "more significant or notable." I admire your efforts to remain authentic and credible but I think it's only fair to judge this post, or listing or article or entry or whatever you call it, with the same latitude afforded many of the entries I have just recently looked at. On an intellectual note: ANY information about ANY COMPANY can be seen as "promotional" as opposed to "informative." Not true with many most of the subjects on Wiki. but our company is a force in the industry. The author in this case makes no grand claims or sales pitches about our company. He presents facts and has apparently done a decent bit of homework and revision to comply with your feedback. He has contacted me for additional source material and I have had my staff help him as requested. I would encourage you take a fresh look, less as you would an entry on an historical figure, but rather like other more and less prominent companies currently bless by approval! :) I appreciate the time you ALL have spent keepin' it real! Cheers. Greg Medford — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1knifemaker (talk • contribs) 03:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, due to a lack of indpendent coverage in reliable third-party sources. This doesn't mean that the company doesn't exist, doesn't mean that their products aren't of a high quality, and doesn't mean that those involved aren't good people. But we can't write a neutral article on the company without neutral sources to call upon. As far as articles on other companies in the same industry goes, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS would seem to apply. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

comment Excuse me, but I feel that there are double standards regarding the present article ; 1. Seem that this article which describes a knives company required to prove the existence and operations of the company as if it were a master work of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict . 2. The Article got objective sources - plain and simple ! Did not take a genius to figure it out . 3. The other pages of similar companies do not meet the standards of the reviews I encounter them - so please... 4. I reject outright the claim that most subjects that do not have enough " respected " resources it 's not worth mentioning; This contradicts the principle of just about any curiosity and innovation. 5. sorry if anyone got hurt from what I wrote, this is my first experience with WIKIPEDIA and I feel like I have to fight a swarm of intellectuals just to mention that MKT exists. Eytankey (talk) 07:37, 2 August 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. Obvious keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Adel

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

He is just a local soccer player, not a nationwide known player. Variation 25.2 (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NFOOTY. First-team player on a top-flight club. —C.Fred (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NFOOTY. He has played in the Egyptian Premier League a Fully Professional league.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article clearly meets WP:NSPORT as he has played in a fully professional league. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:NFOOTY, has played multiple times for a team in a fully professional league. Fenix down (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 17:58, 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 keep. Don't usually close on 2 but since the article's been massively improved the outcome's only going one way!, (As always thanks MichaelQSchmidt for massively improving the article.) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CRAFTS:The Value Of Life

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

No reason to suppose this short film is in any way notable yet TheLongTone (talk) 12:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Weak keep Short films rarely meet WP:NF, but admittedly they sometimes do. WP:BEFORE shows this one to be getting some coverage due to its filmmaker and it starring Kawooya Malcolm (the real-life name of Ugandan popular rap artist MalX). The format issues that brought this to AFD were easy to fix and I am looking into sourcing... and I hold hope. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 10:43, 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 12:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Antigng (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the work done by MQS. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 15:34, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alps Road, Branford

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

Insufficient context. No references and not written in an encyclopedic tone. Even if the article is rewritten, it would have little content other than defining the subject as a road, since not much sources could be found. May therefore fail WP:GNG as required in WP:NGEO. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. This is a non-notable city street, pure and simple, so it definitely fails GNG. –Fredddie ™ 16:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Unlike the listing that links to it, it does not appear to be a state highway (and in the US, "highway" normally implies state maintenance unless the term is modified to say "county highway" in places where there is a distinction between them and other county roads.) Imzadi 1979 → 01:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find references for the information currently in the article. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 04:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- It stikes me as utterly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 1 August 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. Davewild (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Najran 1-2 Hajer

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

I really do not think that the fact that hardly anybody could be bothered to trolley along to watch this match makes it notable. TheLongTone (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just having a very low attendance does not make a match notable, especially given that, as the article notes, this was nowhere near the lowest attendance recorded (see this for example) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even if low attendance was something that would make a match inherently notable, this game is nowhere near the lowest attendance. no indication that the low attendance garnered any real coverage that would satisfy GNG anyway. Fenix down (talk) 07:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 17:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Low attendance is not notable. Elspamo4 (talk) 00:23, 29 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 Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) --Finngall ^talk 17:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pork Recordings

AfDs for this article:

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. There are sources, but not enough. Boleyn (talk) 13:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination my silly error, sorry. Boleyn (talk) 13:31, 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 keep. Davewild (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Journey to the West (2016 film)

AfDs for this article:

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

Absolutely no source supporting the claim that principle photography has begun, and as a result still fails WP:NFF per the previous discussion. I don't really see the film in the cited webpage [english.entgroup.cn/inproduction/] that's supposed to indicate that principle filming has begun, because I don't think "Journey to the West: Conquering the Demons2" is the same film. But even if it is the same film, the webpage clearly says "Pre-production". Also, if it's the same film and the film is allowed to stay, the title should be either Journey to the West: Conquering the Demons 2 or Journey to the West (2017 film) according to that webpage (another reason why it's so bad to create a page for a film before filming has begun). Timmyshin (talk) 01:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cattus:, can you give us another source that says that filming has begun? If the page lists the film under a different name (ie, in Chinese) then we'll need to know which title it's under so we can add it to the article. (This is an especially good thing to do since it's also extremely likely that coverage will be under this name, either as a Romanized version of the name or in Chinese writing.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know that there are already some non-English titles on the page, but if the article's title has changed any then this will need to be covered. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The film was listed there, but it seems it was removed. Journey to the West: Conquering the Demons 2 is a different film. I searched, but couldn't find another source for principal photography having started. It probably exists in Chinese, but I don't known Chinese. Unless a source is found, I support ~~moving~~ it to Draft.--Cattus ^talk 12:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nevermind, just found it. For some reason, it only appears when chosing the letter "G"... As you can see, it says "states" - "filming". --Cattus ^talk 12:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably bringing it up because of the way it's spelled phonetically, where it does start with a G, although it's strange for them to do this when they're listing the English titles. Still, it is there and listed as filming. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect, this is not believable in my opinion. Nowadays news article about filming of Chinese films, even low-budget ones, are all over the internet, and this film doesn't have any, because well, filming hasn't begun. If it has begun as claimed, may I ask in which city/province? Timmyshin (talk) 05:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 06:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is showing as currently filming (despite the extra step needed to find it on the website). —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Antigng (talk) 12:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:NFILM.--Antigng (talk) 12:04, 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. Without prejudice to a mention/redirect as described by kelapstick. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jiangnan University Stadium

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

Stadiums of universities are not notable. Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite) 03:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Fails WP:GNG; unable to find any coverage beyond a few scientific papers written on the building's architecture. The papers definitely provide significant coverage, but I'm not sure how independent they are. Furthermore, they almost certainly won't support an article about the stadium describing it like a stadium, rather than an architectural marvel (as these papers may suggest). APerson (talk!) 03:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 06:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Antigng (talk) 11:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and mention in article, redirect after. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 15:50, 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. The keep arguments are not based on wikipedia's notability guidelines, which GermanJoe demonstrates are not met. This is not a vote so those arguing to keep without explaining how wikipedia's notability guidelines were met were given little to no weight in this closure and as such the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rahel25 makes no difference to this closure. Davewild (talk) 14:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mootisave

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)

Does not pass WP:MUSICBIO. --XXN, 10:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mootisave is notable in Europe. saved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.138.235 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 25 July 2015

Keep This non profit musical producer is very notable not only in europe. Mootisave is puplished in the bigest newspapers in Germany Bild (Bild Zeitung) Mootisave want start for Germany at Grand Prix in Stockholm. The TV Shows from Mootisave are in the biges TV programs in europe at RTL Television. Looks at References. Absolut Notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahel25 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 25 July 2015

Keep: I know Mootisave from RTL TV. Mootisave is very famous. Why delete?? Mootisave is also famous in Turkey. Mehmedk1 (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC) — Mehmedk1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep: This article is correct. I see no problem. Mootisave is a relevance and notable music producer and very famous dance group. Mootisave by RTL TV and Mootisave in Das Supertalent by RTL Television. Chrbet360 (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC) — Chrbet360 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in Hungary is Frank Christoph Schnitzler a notable person. As singer from Mootisave begin he to start at Grand Prix.I think Mootisave is notable in europe and the article is ok in Wikipedia. The references from Mootisave are confirmation this Johann48 (talk) 22:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC) — Johann48 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

- For what exactly is notable this artist? Just some passing mentions in press does not make him notable. He has released only one CD Single (2014). Honours that he received are of locale importance, and anyway they can't make him notable. XXN, 22:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - current references in article are #1 local newspaper from the artist's home town, OK as source but can't establish notability. #2 BILD - just a short news announcement, no in-depth coverage. #3 - #5 I certainly mean no disrespect, but Szob is a tiny village of 3,000 residents (at least per Wiki). Those awards can't establish notability either. The suggested new source above (the lengthy RTL article) is not independent, RTL is the channel for Das Supertalent. A search via Google revealed just the known sources and a few more passing mentions. GermanJoe (talk) 00:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - new editors voting here with their first edits (4 of the 5 keep votes above) should read WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Just being well-known is not enough: the topic needs significant in-depth coverage by independent reliable sources. GermanJoe (talk) 00:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Former contestant in a TV talent show where he was voted out after his first appearance. His only nation wide mention was in the 'Bild' newspaper after he announced his try for the European Song Contest. The newspaper named him the worst singer of his state (Ländle) and a jester. He is a honorary knight of a Hungarian order founded in 2011. — Ben Ben ^(talk) 01:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is not decisive what the newspaper named him or writing. The TV shows with Mootisave are in europe notable. other article here are very no notable as this article. I think its ok to keep it. Rahel25 (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate vote: Rahel25 (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above. — Ben Ben ^(talk) 09:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just another talent show loser. Lost cause he was spectacularly bad. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: an SPI has been opened in connection with this discussion. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rahel25. Mz7 (talk) 03:41, 1 August 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. Michig (talk) 07:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isabel Kaif

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete: as non-notable actress. Notability not inherited from her more successful sister, Bollywood actress Katrina Kaif. Quis separabit? 23:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Katrina Kaif (as an alternative to deletion) as my searches and even a simple look at IMDb shows there's not much for independent notability; although I found results for the sister at Books (mostly for Katrina of course) and gossip/entertainment here, there's nothing substantial. SwisterTwister talk 21:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable actress, Her sister is obviously notable but this BLP isn't, Wasn't notable in 2013 and unfortunately isn't notable now, Fails WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:NACTOR & WP:GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:02, 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 keep. And moved to Vadsar, Gandhinagar. (non-admin closure) — Yash! ^(Y) 04:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vadasar

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

Unremarkable place, no references or obviously relevant important web content. Not notable. | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 07:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Seems to meet the requirements of WP:GEOLAND. The one reference is to a map which shows it exists which is enough for a village of 1000 people to get a wikipedia page. The writing style is not what we want but that means the page needs an editor - not that it should be deleted. filceolaire (talk) 15:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Vadsar, Gandhinagar. Verifiable settlement. The article calls the place Vadsar and so does Census of India (population 7400). Census of India also says there are two villages named Vadsar in Gujarat. There is also another village named Vadasar in Kachchh district. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 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 redirect to Ann Coulter. If and what to merge from history can be hashed out through the editorial process. Sandstein 09:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Political positions of Ann Coulter

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

I think this article can be merged into Ann Coulter biography. It doesn't warrant a separate article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete and merge to her biography Totally agree, her views are not notable enough for a separate article from her biography. Govindaharihari (talk) 09:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge. No need for the extra article. Andrew³²⁷ 11:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- not sufficiently notable for a second article. It doesn't help that someone using Ann Coulter's initials is responsible for most of the content... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You can't delete an article and then merge the content elsewhere. You would need to merge the content and then redirect it to preserve attribution. Also, AfD is not the place to propose merges - it should be done on the article's talk page. --Michig (talk) 06:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The content that was in the bio before it was moved here and more than tripled in size was replaced to her bio on July 16, see Ann_Coulter#Political activities and commentary, so there is nothing to merge back as it seems clear that this amount of commentary on her opinions politically is excessive. Govindaharihari (talk) 07:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As pointed out above, "delete and merge" is not a valid course of action here. Relisting as it's not clear which option is preferred; deletion or redirect/merge. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lankiveil - It has already been re-merged back - have a look yourself - this is where wikipedia falls on its face, after over ten days, with no support to keep , some anon user (Lankiveil) comes along and extends the worthless discussion for another ten days and then it is finally removed from web searches. - Create a redirect if you want, just delete this unduly promotional content asap and move on Govindaharihari (talk) 06:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The relisting of this discussion was correct. One of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia is that "Wikipedia is free content", and that means everything we write is freely usable as long as you attribute the content to the authors. When you merge an article's content to another article, the source article's contribution history needs to be kept because it has all the author's names, which are legally required for attribution. When a closing admin is faced with !votes like "delete and merge", they are understandably confused because ~~the two simply cannot~~ it is very difficult for the two to occur together. Mz7 (talk) 02:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC), revised 03:12, 2 August 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. Davewild (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Drake feuds

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

A trivial list, that could easily be condensed into Drake. Koala15 (talk) 05:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cruft at its finest. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - who is making these? —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very trivial indeed. This article is trying to make Drake look like he's in a Scarface movie and make it seem like everybody is against Drake. The article is way too exaggerated and dramatic. Just delete it.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Who's next on this list A$AP Rocky, PartyNextDoor and Justin Bieber? Most of the supposed feuds on there are minor and irrelevant with people he has collaborated with and are friends with him.
Do Not Delete - Drake's feuds are numerous, long and complex enough to warrant a page, in my opinion. However, it may be possible to condense it into a very large section on Drake's personal page. Atomthegod (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:GNG. Drake has been the subject of some notable feuds, as documented at that page and as such, this is a perfectly valid WP:SPINOFF of the main Drake article. It's not perfect, but it is fairly well sourced, with 45 sources and counting. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, gotta agree. These are getting a lot of media attention (especially the songs that are being put out because of them), and there's too much information about them to really do them justice if we want to put them in the already long article. Charwinger21 (talk) 11:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of these beefs are not serious and many of these rappers follow Drake on Twitter and have backtracked their opinion. Check https://doesfollow.com/.

Delete completely These are all irrelevant feuds that have been resolved and are a publicity stunt. Most of these rappers "beef" with him for media attention then later say they are a fan of Drake. Look at these for example: http://www.bet.com/news/music/2014/09/12/chris-brown-on-ending-drake-beef-you-cant-hold-grudges.html

http://www.bet.com/news/music/2012/01/19/common-likes-drake-s-music-ready-to-move-on-from-beef.html— Preceding unsigned comment added by HipHopVisionary (talk • contribs) 12:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well sourced and does pass WP:GNG. If not kept, should be condensed into main article. -- Dspradau → talk 15:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just delete. That article is ridiculous and pretty pathetic and is written like a gossip blog or gossip magazine. No offense and it doesn't contain additional references. All of the songs' lyrics are subliminal and don't do any name dropping and are unknown who they referring to. Please delete this ambigous article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.65.210 (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It seems like a lot of the arguments against are WP:I just don't like it. It's fine if you think that the events are "manufactured" or "old", but that doesn't change the substantial media coverage (both now and when they happened) from both music news sources (like Rolling Stone and MTV) and more mainstream sources (like CNN and Time Magazine), and is not a reason to delete. Charwinger21 (talk) 05:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is nonsense. Drake doesn't have serious beef with anyone. Most of these feuds didn't last long and have been squashed.
Delete - The overall theme here is: "Drake had a feud with Smith. Smith said/did (whatever).^[1] Then Drake said/did (whatever).^[2] Then Smith did/said (whatever).^[3] Then Drake did/said (whatever).^[4] Then Smith did/said (whatever).^[5] Then Drake did/said (whatever).^[6] Then Smith did/said (whatever).^[7]" We could easily write meaningless "List of Donald Trump feuds", "List of Mark Twain feuds", "List of McDonalds feuds", etc. articles all day. Each would have lots of references, one for each thing each supposed side of the feud did or said. That the "controversy" is likely manufactured to generate press is immaterial. Each piece of Drake's supposed feud with whomever tells us nothing at all about the supposed topic of Drake's feuds. Yes, we have a lot of "list" articles. The best of them are lists of things there are already articles about and the inclusion criteria are breathtakingly clear. Lists of United States Supreme Court cases, for instance (this is actually a list of lists, but pick one, say List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Warren Court. There are articles outlining what a Supreme Court case is. There are articles for most of the individual cases. There are no meaningful questions as to what belongs on the list. Was Brown v. Board of Education decided by the Warren Court? Find a source of any depth about the Warren Court and it is in there. Numerous sources list Warren Court cases. The lists are all identical. How about Drake v. Meek Mill How many in depth sources about Drake or Mill discuss this? Where are the reliable sources listing all of Drake's feuds? If Drake disputes his credit card bill is it a "feud"? If he takes a stalker to court, is that a "feud"? He didn't like Clone Wars? (Who did?) Did anyone respond to his tweet about Jarjar? It's a feud! There simply isn't an article here because there isn't a clear topic here. Drake says something about someone else. They respond. If it's all a love fest, we don't care. If Drake and the other person disagree, though, it's a "feud"? - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - None of his feuds have been really notable or relevant to hip-hop. 60% "He did that, diss songs, they're friends now". I highly doubt most of them are "beefs". Cornerstonepicker (talk) 04:35, 1 August 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. Michig (talk) 06:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Clackson

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

Non-notable writer - links and references are largely to works by him, rather than works about him, and his primary claim to notability seems to be posting articles on globalresearch.ca (which is a conspiracy theory website). Article touts him as founder of "Global Political Insight," but I can't find any info on the group in any RS, and its website appears to be dead. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:BASIC, only blog coverage + his writings. Esquivalience ^t 04:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks adequate coverage from secondary sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete I searched, but nothing much. Appears to be written as promotion for a non notable wanna-be policy analyst. At best it is WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:02, 29 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 redirect to Artista Academy. Davewild (talk) 14:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marvelous Alejo

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete: as non-notable individual. Former entertainer now studying to be a veterinarian. Nominated previously and kept only because nobody participated (aside from nominator, myself). Quis separabit? 17:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe redirect to Artista Academy as although it seems there's quite a bit of Filipino coverage, that may be her best known work. My searches found some more results here and here. SwisterTwister talk 21:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Artista Academy.--RioHondo (talk) 03:49, 29 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. I want to note that at 13:49, 28 July 2015‎ (UTC), the AfD template on the article was removed by an anonymous editor and wasn't restored until 02:31, 1 August 2015‎. Since this discussion has already been open for three weeks with very little participation and, as a result, no consensus, I can't see how keeping this open a little bit longer would help. However, that being said, due to low participation, there is also no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 02:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ITNAmerica

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

One of a pair of promotional articles. (The other is for the foudner). Writing two articles for a subject of very borderline notability at best is a basically promotional technique. I tried removing some of the tabloid material and inappropriate listings of boards of directors and of links to each individual branch, but there's nothing much left. Single purpose editor, with presumed conflict of interest. DGG ( talk ) 15:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and stub A quick Google News search reveals plenty of sources.[29] Operations in 15 states suggest it is a decent-sized effort. Most of the article is not worth keeping, but given that their notability is unquestionable, we should spend a bit of time to stub it. CorporateM (Talk) 07:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:45, 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 delete. Davewild (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FullCircle

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

Defunct (well sort of, rebranded as BCast, also at AFD) social networking app fails WP:NSOFT and WP:CORP. References are primary sources, legal info, o-so-brief mentions in not-so-reliable sources. Vrac (talk) 02:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:ORG. This is not directly relevant to the AfD decision criteria, but I'll also mention that its creator was blocked for promotional editing and undisclosed paid editing. Jytdog (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately and draft/userfy if wished as my searches found no good third-party coverage and I would've invited User:Qwyrxian to comment but he's been away since January. SwisterTwister talk 17:59, 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. Michig (talk) 06:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pritam Ghosh

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

Does not meet WP:BASIC nor does it meet WP:NPOL (specifically, WP:POLOUTCOMES). Only two of the sources provided in the article mention this person's name at all (and those articles simply list his name; they don't provide any coverage, biographical, or any content regarding this person). Searching for sources comes back with nothing to help prove notability. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My searches did turn up a Hindustan Times 2006 piece quoting the subject ([30], via Highbeam, subscription required) but that was him being quoted in a political role rather than being about him. Neither that nor the various other mentions around his unsuccessful electoral candidacy meet WP:POLITICIAN or broader biographical notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 07:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per AllyD -- Dspradau → talk 15:08, 30 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 redirect to Too Short. Davewild (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Stop Rappin'

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

Non notable album. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 01:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Koala15 (talk) 02:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Koala15 (talk) 02:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Too Short, fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. Azealia911 _talk 01:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Too Short. Barely any content, a no coverage of the album found beyond brief mentions. --Michig (talk) 07:07, 1 August 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. To judge by the author's message on the talk page, this could be deleted as using Wikipedia as a free host. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Startup Grind Directors

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

Contested PROD. Unsourced list of living people that belongs in the related organization's website, not on Wikipedia. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete No value except promotion, as well as no sources. Jd027 (talk) 01:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would these sources improve the credibility? https://www.startupgrind.com/about-us/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshsteimle/2014/12/16/startup-grind-grows-to-150-cities/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by O7oleg (talk • contribs) 01:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. O7oleg also seems to have a conflict of interest as he is included in the list (WP:NMCHK). Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 20:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no indication of importance, pure promotion —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:51, 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.