Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 23 July	25 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. czar 08:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adya Prasad Chaturvedi

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

A homoeopath and Hindi writer who translated books from Sanskrit. The article talks mostly about his personal life, and its single reference is a website that makes no mention of him. I've only been able to verify that he is a registered homoeopath (as of 2013) [1]. I don't see any trace of his literary activities. A search for Adya Prasad Chaturvedi returns no results on google news or google books. A normal google search returns five pages of results, which are either wikipedia mirrors or pages about other people with this name. No google results for what I presume is the Hindi spelling आद्य प्रसाद चतुर्वेदी: [2][3][4]. The article claims his penname is Jay Gurudev but I haven't searched for it as it's way too generic. Uanfala (talk) 23:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note Not sure if this is worth mentioning, but the article was created, reviewed and edited by socks of a single user, who was recently banned for using multiple accounts to circumvent WP:NPP. So it's very likely the article's creator wasn't himself convinced the subject would pass our notability guidelines. Uanfala (talk) 21:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 23:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've also tried a search for his pen name Jai Gurudev but the results are swamped with hits about Jai Gurudev, a different person. Trying a more specific search in Hindi for his name (either real or penname) and either of the names of his two poems given in the article returns 9 results [5], none of which have any relevance at all. Now, it's certainly odd for such an eminent contemporary writer (as the article claims) to have left no online trace whatsoever of his works. Uanfala (talk) 07:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails to establish notability of subject. It's single source is in Hindi and I cannot evaluate its merit. A Google search mostly reveals mirrors or unrelated subjects. Finally, some of the phrasing in this article ("commanded great respect", "famous") sounds more promotional than informative and these phrases are completely unsourced. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Undertaking translations on the side and poetry writing is a popular pastime in India. If Wikipedia added everyone who did it, its pages would double. Engleham (talk) 11:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Lack of discussion renders consensus undeterminable. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 15:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Akasha (band)

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

Another long-standing music article with notability tags, this one since 2014. The band played Glastonbury, but many do (there's tons and tons of stages every year), and although they've released a number of albums and singles it's not clear how much coverage they received. They only released one album on Wall of Sound - a remixes release doesn't really count as a separate album - so they don't meet the two album criteria either. Happy to accept arguments as I'm listing based on the long-standing tags on the article. KaisaL (talk) 14:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Long-standing group with plenty of releases, and at least some coverage in reliable sources: [6], [7], [8], [9]. --Michig (talk) 11:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 23:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 23:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 08:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AOC Key Solutions, Inc

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

Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Available sources are limited to press releases, business listings, and a couple of passing mentions of two employees in the Washington Post [10][11]. - Mr X 16:03, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I just published this article, and just want to say that I intend to expand it, and that this was just an initial stub. This firm has generated several billion USD in government contracts in the last 20 years, so it's quite a notable firm (both in the context of companies out there and also companies within Wikipedia). Thank you for the opportunity of letting me continue to work on this. ExitonBridge (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 23:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 23:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:DEL8. Just a general comment, contractors don't seem to be of much interest to the world at large. This one is not listed with investing.businessweek.com, which in my experience is a usually a good indicator of Wikipedia notability. There is another company AOC Solutions, also in Chantilly, VA, but which has different officers and business description (which is listed on investing.businessweek.com). There seems to be a discrepancy in when the firm started; as bloomberg, buzzfile.com, and manta say it was founded in 2007; while the company's website is saying 1983. I checked Google books, Google news, and the first two pages of Google web, and while finding things that show this is an established firm with 30 employees, nothing to indicate Wikipedia notability, nor any reason to think that there would be a redirect target. I also searched for "AOC Key Solutions" within Wikipedia and checked the "What links here" without finding any redirect targets. Unscintillating (talk) 04:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As per comment above, this AOC Key Solutions, and the other one mentioned (also located in Chantilly VA) are related companies. The article needs to clarify this further (branches, founding dates, related organisations, etc.), but there is no doubt this is a notable organisation (as suggested above). Moreover, I'm not convinced by the above comment about contractors not being "of interest to the world at large", specially if they play a key part in the economy as it does in this case. ExitonBridge (talk) 00:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Unscintillating's research. for (;;) (talk) 09:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Though I understand the reasons why the article was originally proposed for deletion, this is a notable company in my circles, which is why I opted to create this page. I don't mind if it gets deleted, I just ask that the deletion be based on the new evidence given on the article's updates, and not the original post. If by then there are other editors that still don't agree it deserves a place in Wikipedia, then by all means delete the article. Alternatively, I (and hopefully others) will continue to contribute to it. Thanks. ExitonBridge (talk) 00:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The coverage in business journals is not considered for the purposes of CORPDEPTH. We need better sources than those and press releases. The coverage I found was clearly lacking. A couple of articles on Washington Post seem to quote a member of the company. But the depth of coverage required is not present in any of the sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Try http://writersdiet.com/?page_id=4 czar 08:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poetic encyclopaedist school

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

... but finding actual sources requires looking for the Chinese name 百科诗派 of which a better translation would be "Encyclopedic poetry school" (disclaimer: I don't actually speak Chinese) Imaginatorium (talk) 06:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:GNG, non-notable literary group. Self-promotional JMHamo (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Self-promotional gibberish. I defy anyone to make any actual sense of a noun phrase like: "Macroscopic concept of parallel universes and microscopic definition of parallel genders, capacity expanding of “vessels”, methods to detect breakthrough points in remix of physics, chemistry, biology, geography, geology, psychology, calligraphy, photography, musicology, geometry, atmospheric science, and information sciences in epic poetry, which acted as an icebreaker of stagnation in sexual notions and consequently leads to and disruption of old orthodoxy." Until someone writes something in comprehensible English about this group, no grounds for notability. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 23:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No convincing evidence of notability. I would have expected a google search on the 3 words Chinese Poetry Encyclop(a)edic/st (ie 4 variations) -Wikipedia to come up with some mention by non-Chinese critics or scholars, but nothing found. PamD 09:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hot mess that needs to be destroyed. Bearian (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. On the strength of the arguments there is a narrow consensus to delete. If someone wants a copy mailing to them, let me know. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Miguell

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

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a musician, which makes no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and is very poorly sourced -- in fact, the article is copied and pasted directly from his own self-published website about himself. While the content there is CC-licensed, preventing this from being speediable as a WP:COPYVIO, the notability and the reliable sourcing needed to make him eligible to have it copied and pasted into Wikipedia has not been shown. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - translating two of the refs from Swedish still revealed no evidence of n otability. The University of Gothenburg refs show that he exists and plays music, probably plays music well. But nothing that I can see conveys notability as required by Wikipedia. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I suspect it's not a copyvio because there's a good chance the same person wrote both articles – the Wikipedia article was created by the editor Antonypdesmond... Antony Desmond is the co-founder of the Nowartis management agency, who manage Miguell. Richard3120 (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not Delete - Being a Swede and specially Gothenburg I know Pedro Miguell is a quite big name in Gothenburg Sweden since he won the contemporary music contest in Växjö in 2013 and become the year after principal conductor of Göteborg Moderna Orkester which is very uncommon to people with only 24 years old. I recommend the article being submitted to review, specially the references because mainly are found in local newspapers like GP. However I agree with BearCat and Richard3120 that it looks a bit promotional article by this company Nowartis. Mozigon (talk) 00:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)— Mozigon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Pedro Miguell is a well known Portuguese young composers and conductors inside the classical music world. I was reading the article and it is very incompatible but he achieved notability during his bachelor's degree time. He won a competition with his first opera. Like mozigon, I would keep this article but submit it to deep revision. Sarahoboenix (talk) 06:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)— Sarahoboenix (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete: Not a notable musician.—Constanstin 07:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Notable enough in Sweden inside the art field. Trumann12 (talk) 07:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)— Trumann12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Do not Delete - Pedro Miguell is a well known young composer in Portugal connected to multiple movements in Porto. (Proart ensemble, maus hábitos, fora de horas). Apart from that, he has published music works in Sweden. Notability was reached for sure on WP:NMUSIC topic 1). 2.) 9.) and 11.)Leichnester (talk) 09:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)— Leichnester (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Leichnester, if you are "sure" that he passes criteria 1 and 2 in WP:NMUSIC then you can provide those sources? Perhaps an option would be to userfy this article while one of the editors who is arguing for 'keep' works on improving it? Richard3120 (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability, for Wikipedia's purposes, is not demonstrated by asserting that he's passed one or more NMUSIC criteria — it's demonstrated by reliably sourcing that he's gotten media coverage for accomplishing one or more NMUSIC criteria. It doesn't matter what notability criterion you claim a person meets — if he met it without getting media coverage about his meeting of it, then he still doesn't get an article on here until media coverage can be shown. Bearcat (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for a limited time to revisionOkey I found this. He has an album in Itunes, so Swedish music charts? https://itunes.apple.com/en/album/timings-ep/id1138059271?app=music&ign-mpt=uo%3D4 WP:NMUSIC second topic is checked? I think we should keep this article for 60 days until it is well sourced and edited, otherwise delete it.Trumann12 (talk) 22:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, he's never charted on Sverigetopplistan, which isn't surprising as he's not a pop/rock/dance artist. Richard3120 (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm a bit concerned here about possible socks and COI in this debate. The only two edits Sarahoboenix has made on Wikipedia so far are writing the "keep" statement above. The userpage for Sarahoboenix was created by Trumann12. And Bearcat, were you aware that Mogizon had written to you (now deleted) on the talk page attached to this deletion discussion? Richard3120 (talk) 23:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am concerned with these Itunes release "due to been released at some few hours ago", however it is difficult to have music on Itunes Store. Richard3120 Bearcat, I am trying to find sources to support my claims but in Sweden it is not so easy since most of the newspapers are local and there records most exist only printed. I will check tomorrow the public library to see if I find sources for this article, however in negative case I myself change my vote to delete. Richard3120 I agree with you, Trumann12 and Sarahobonix seem very suspicious. Leichnester (talk) 23:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not restricted to online web sources — while we like to provide a convenience URL to an online copy of the source if one is available, print-only content is acceptable sourcing as long as (a) that content has been published (people have, for instance, tried to source stuff to private personal correspondence, which doesn't count as valid sourcing as it hasn't been published), and (b) you provide the complete citation details so that somebody can track down the source if needed. So if you really do have enough viable offline sources, such as newspaper or magazine or book content that can get him over GNG, then that will count. Bearcat (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry guys, did not had time to pass today by the library. Bearcat I am concerned mostly with topic 1) 2) 9) and 11) of WP:NMUSIC. And this concerning is related with this link/src http://www.norrkopingssymfoniorkester.se/index.php/orkestern/aktuellt/nyheter/haer-aer-kompositoererna. The thing is (a) it was not him who wrote it, (b) the last paragraph translated says that before Norrköping Symphoniorkester premier his piece, he had already pieces premiered by Porto Orchestra and Lübeck Orchestra and Norrköping was also premiering a new piece (c) Orchestras cannot play unpublished pieces because of copyright laws (d) and this is where I get more surprised, if he has 25 years old, how can him have so many "orchestral pieces of music" played by orchestras? The classical music world is very competitive and having a single orchestra performing a piece is already a prize for the composer. He has 3 pieces premiered at least. And then there is the album matter on topic 2). He has an album that it will never enter to the top charts because it is classical music but let's look to the facts. Classical music is difficult to sell and still there was a label deciding to invest on a young guy to sell his "classical music" by Itunes store and amazon. I do not know if I am surpassing my bonds, but I think with this kind of young classical musicians we cannot take the WP:NMUSIC so literal when it comes to the criteria. Sorry for this comment and honestly if I do not manage tomorrow to pass by the library and try to find the sources I will be the first one saying delete it since it has passed already too much time however since I know the work of this musician from here Göteborg Sweden, I suggest what Richard3120 has done before, to give some time to the article for the responsible to source it well. Leichnester (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be best to Draftify this. I still see no notability here but I am willing to let somebody try and find the sources if they are out there. However it isn't my call, so just a suggestion Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rohini Sindhuri (IAS)

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

Non Notable Junior Level Civil Servant. Fails WP:BIO. Page is promotional and autobiographical with exaggerations. While we do have some biographies of very Civil Service officers, this isn't the case as she is junior level. Plus, the article appears to be heavily padded with things which happened to occur on her watch, rather than things for which he was directly responsible. Uncletomwood (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable civil servant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all actually convincing of her own noticeable notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not an encyclopedia piece for now. Curlzon (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 15:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bec Korfball Club

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

Non-notable team. Although England Korfball list Bec as among their "Premier League", there is no indication that this is a notable league (in the same manner that the English Premier football league is notable). No significant, independent coverage can be found for this team. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear WikiDan61 - I am the current England captain for korfball and also the Chair of Bec Korfball Club so pretty well informed in this area. That being said, I am also a beginner when it comes to Wikipedia so do bear that in mind! I can confirm that the "Premier League" on the England Korfball site is the top level of competition for korfball in England (e.g. the equivalent of the English Premier League in football for our sport) so it is certainly notable.

In terms of independent coverage:

Here is a piece in the SW Londoner about our attempts to win the national league including a video created by their team: http://www.swlondoner.co.uk/third-time-lucky-bec-korfball-club-hoping-score-play-off-semi-final-win-croydon/
Here is a piece in the Tooting Daily Press on our club: http://tooting-news.dailyprss.co.uk/tabs/blog/2015/05/tooting-bec-korfball-club-season-report
Here is a piece I wrote for the BBC about the sport: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/get-inspired/29744696

What else do I need to do to stop the page from being deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KorfBen (talk • contribs) 12:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@KorfBen: The first two pieces, from the SW Londoner and the Tooting Daily Press are of the nature of local coverage, in the manner that any local paper might cover its local sports teams, not evidence of any particular widespread notability; while the third piece is hardly independent, having been written by you, an active member of the team trying to promote your sport. I wouldn't count any of these articles as contributing to the widespread notability of your team. Participation at the Premier League level would normally count for notability, but we'd need the independent coverage to verify that. It could be that the sport of korfball just doesn't receive enough notice for its participant teams to be notable. (I use, as an example, with no intent to denigrate korfball or its players, the game of tiddlywinks. Certainly Wikipedia has an article about the game, and even an article about the English Tiddlywinks Association, and yet its individual competitors (players or teams) would not likely be notable. Korfball may fall into a similar category.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiDan61: In the manner of many who use the phrase "with no intent to", you have managed to achieve exactly what you were supposedly trying not to. Comparing our sport to Tiddlywinks undermines the many people who commit their time to playing, coaching and organising the sport around the world. Unlike Tiddlywinks, Korfball is a sport, which is Olympic-recognised and has been in the World Games for decades. Although I see your point about the article being written by me, surely the fact that respected organisations such as the BBC and Sky Sports deem Korfball notable enough to feature should be enough for the inclusion of the top domestic teams on Wikipedia?

@KorfBen: As an IOC recognized sport (but not, at this time, an Olympic sport), Korfball deserves, and has received, coverage at Wikipedia. National-level teams (the English korfball team, the Netherlands korfball team, etc) might merit inclusion. Individual local teams require coverage as defined at WP:ORG, and as far as I can tell, Bec have not yet received that level of coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiDan61: Referring to Bec as a local team is incorrect. It is one of the largest and most successful korfball clubs in the UK. The Manchester United of korfball in the UK if you will. I do not understand why you are so keen to try and take down this page? As I think I have made clear, although it may not be notable for you, it is certainly notable for those who play our sport. What harm does it do by existing? As a side note, if you do insist on taking it down, I recommend you do the same for Trojans Korfball Club and Highbury Korfball Club.

Comment Bec may well be "the Manchester United of Korfball", but lacking any significant sources, we can't assume that it is notable. The "harm it does by existing" is that Wikipedia has guidelines for what should be included, and those guidelines exist so that the facts of any particular article can be verified against the available reliable sources. If we ignore those guidelines, then Wikipedia can become a great pool of unverified facts, which reduces its value as a reference source. As for other korfball clubs, I refer you to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 17:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. sufficient consensus after relisting DGG ( talk ) 22:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MarketResearch.com

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

Promotion for not notable company. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Current article is a bombardment of press releases and listing. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete counting one reliable source and lots of primary sourced profiles, press releases, etc. Comes off as spam. News Team Assemble!^[talk?] 11:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 17:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article itself is nothing more than business directory listings (I removed the press releases), announcements of mergers (not notable), and one link to a university site giving its users instructions on how to use the database. That said, it is possible that there is more to this, but it isn't easy to find. I can find some reports that use the company's data but they are all re-hashes of press releases that the company has produced (Top X trends in Y industry). Their data seems to be used, but I don't find anything about the company itself. LaMona (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Lack of discussion renders consensus undeterminable. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 15:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers: Alternators

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

This toyline has nothing to establish notability independent of the main work. I am also nominating the following related toyline articles that also fail to establish notability:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 17:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per failure of WP:GNG and violation of WP:FANCRUFT. Every source that exists is either promotional or written by obsessive fans, which does not satisfy the coverage needed to attain notability. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 20:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as standard lists covered by WP:CSC #2. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still requires actual reliable, secondary source coverage... We don't make lists of all things not independently notable czar 09:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 09:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Sparber

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

Procedural nomination. Have declined a PROD for this article as there are some (minor) reliable sources - the discussion may benefit from the wider editor review of AfD. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable weight loss expert.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 17:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Classic case of BLP1E and "notability is not inherited". The subject is notable for being the owner of a camp (whose notability itself is questionable). In addition, the coverage about the subject is sparse (more focus is on the camps). If you take out the part about the camp, there are only brief mentions left. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Motoroids

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

There are no independent, reliable sources that tell us anything about Motoroids, because the website has not been the subject of any coverage whatsoever. It has won no awards, and nobody has expressed any curiosity about this website, how it is run, who writes for it, or what makes it unique. The only independently published fact we have about Motoroids is its Alexa rank.

(Since this is a 3rd nomination, what follows is a very long discussion of what went wrong in the last AfD)

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motoroids (2nd nomination), one editor (@Anupmehra:) argued that it should be kept based on WP:WEBCRIT #1, "the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." While it is true that there the International Business Times routinely summarizes bits of automotive content from Motoroids, and HighBeam has similar hits for a mysterious magazine called Auto Business News (ABN), the content that is picked up by other publications is entirely trivial, or WP:ROUTINE.

The content is generated thus: Harley-Davidson India emails out a press release, crowing that they are going to open some new dealerships. Motoriods proceeds to write a blog post, Harley-Davidson opens two new dealerships in Surat and Bengaluru consisting mostly of direct quotes from Harley-Davidson's press release. The following day over at International Business Times, another blogger reads the Motoroids blog post about the H-D press release, and writes their own short summary, Harley-Davidson Opens New Dealerships in Bangalore, Surat, crediting Motoroids for the "scoop" and again heavily quoting the original press release. This cycle is repeated dozens of times, perhaps hundreds. Every time you read a "according to Motoroids this" or "Motoroids reported that", if you click the link, it consists of nothing but Motoroids blogging a quick gloss of a press release from a car or motorcycle company.

The previous AFD failed to note that WP:WEBCRIT does not count "trivial coverage, such as: a brief summary of the nature of the content" which is all that Motoroids gets, and even then, it's only for rehashing press releases.

The fact that Motoroids gets cited by others might be an argument to trust it as a WP:RS, but reliability is not equivalent to notability.

If we are to have an article about Motoroids, what should the article say? We have no sources that verify that it was formerly called Motoroids2, was founded in 2009, has an office in Mumbai, or has a team of 8 writers and 2 photographers. Nobody has published anything about Motoroids except an Alexa rank. Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 17:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 15:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

K-Rab

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

Only one notable production credit; likely fails WP:BAND. Very few sources found Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - This Vibe article indicates some notability. Karst (talk) 07:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:06, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 17:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Karst. Bearian (talk) 21:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sufficient consensus despite relatively low participation DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yukitomo Tochino

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

Still nothing at all suggesting the needed independent notability as his listed works are not major or otherwise convincing and the majority only seems to be as a gun effects worker; my searches have found nothing better and the Japanese Wiki has nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I did a search and literally found nothing in Google news but IMdB, not a reliable source.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tapan Bagchi

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

Notability is not clear. Written like a resume Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Self-written WP:BLP by Drbagchipoetry. Failed WP:GNG and simply promotional article. Same as in BNWIKI, where article created by তপন বাগচী. In the meantime who is suspected under the SPI. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 20:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - poorly sourced BLP of a prolific yet non-notable poet. Lots of poets are out there. Bearian (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Lack of discussion renders consensus undeterminable. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 16:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mushkil Samme Mein

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

The article is apparently a television series. There are no news reports or reliable sources available to support GNG. Placing a request for discussion on whether this article should be deleted. Lourdes 18:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't really figure out what this is, but I agree it looks like an Indian television series from the "what links here" articles. It's possible that there are non-English sources, but I don't see any coverage at all on Google. Given that it's so difficult to even figure out how to research this, I probably would have nominated it for speedy deletion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 23:44, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 16:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 17:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 09:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Motivational press

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

Non-notable company lacking significant coverage in reliable sources –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one of many self-help publishers. Bearian (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 23:44, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 16:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 17:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH by a wide margin. I see a lot of article mentioning the publisher but on taking a closer look, they are all trivial mentions. In fact some of them are made by a certain Justin Sachs who works for the company. I had a look at the article creator's talk page (User_talk:Addicted2book) and I get a feeling that this is an undisclosed paid editing job as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Lack of discussion renders consensus undeterminable. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 16:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Radha Krishna Mandir, Jansath

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

Delete. Only claim of notability is "too old from the time period of Mahabharat". No references to support the claim and this could not be verified from a credible source in Google search. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 23:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 16:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 17:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. After being relisted three times, consensus seems to be to keep, but due to the "weak"ness of the !votes, it's the result is leaning towards no consensus. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neena Beber

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

Completely unreferenced WP:BLP of a television writer, whose only stated claim of notability is writing a single episode of a television series. As always, screenwriters are not automatically eligible for articles just because they exist; reliable source coverage, supporting a claim of notability for more than just existing, must be present. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:08, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There is more than what is in the article. She is a playwrite, and "her ten-minute play Misreadings (included in Best American Short Plays, 1996-7)." Other plays are listed here although that appears to be her publisher, so not an independent source. I found her published plays and added them, plus reviews of two of her plays that were performed in New York and reviewed in the NY Times. It still may not be enough to meet WP:CREATIVE but at least now the article is a reasonable representation. LaMona (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 23:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 16:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 17:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep IMO, NYT = notable Tiptopper (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 09:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AJOTO

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

Frankly I classify this as A7 material and if it was removed, I would've PRODed....but chances are that would've been removed also; my own searches have simply found nothing at all and there's still nothing suggesting actual independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 21:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asking DGG for his analysis as he has a long history with such non-notable subjects like these. SwisterTwister talk 17:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Being one of the first UK-based startup firms to use Kickstarter is incidental rather than a substantial claim of notability. My searches showed little other than a short lifestyle piece on the Telegraph website ("Ajoto: the last pen you will ever need" 25 March 2014). Neither that nor the given references and links seems sufficient to demonstrate lasting notability for an encyclopaedia. AllyD (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If more cannot be found they are not yet notable. The real problem is that this article by a spa who almost certainly had COI, was unlikely to be written by someone's first article, and is therefore a product of paid undeclared paid editing, and we need ways to detect other articles written by the same ring. DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was closed as hoax. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 19:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roca del toro

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

Geographic feature that doesn't appear to meet WP:NGEO or WP:GNG, with most Google results referring to Mexico, not Spain. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm inclined to think that this is either a misunderstanding of the source or a hoax. The Czech source, in Spanish, talks about Heinrich Wankel's work in the Moravian Karst in the Czech Republic, and does not mention Andalusia, Spain at all. All my searches for Roca del toro and Spain have been in vain. Fails WP:V. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 21:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could we not put this article out of its misery rather than relisting again, Music1201? It's been listed for two weeks now and no one has expressed a desire to keep it, plus Sam Sailor suggests that it might even be a hoax. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Cordless Larry here, good points in this regard are made in Wikipedia:Relisting can be abusive. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Insecticons. czar 09:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Venom (Transformers)

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

This character doesn't establish notability. On its own, the "top 9 list" doesn't really help much. TTN (talk) 12:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 21:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Insecticons, since the insections as a group are notable whereas individuals members may not be. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 09:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube CD Creator

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

Completely non-notable software, a spammer's article J. M. (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an informative description of a popular download manager, their are many others in wikipedia that follow the same format, they are active and have a large amount of edits - meaning they haven't slipped through the net so to speak, and have been deemed worthy. This is no exception. Article should remain. Michaelbarry147 (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Michaelbarry147 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. —

You are unable to prove the software is popular, as there are basically no sources about it at all. Besides, notability does not rely on popularity. The "Other stuff exists" argument is invalid in deletion discussions.—J. M. (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-Create-a-CD/ a site which i have no control over, shows that almost 5,000 people have viewed the tutorial there. That is proof that it is popular. Michaelbarry147 (talk) 04:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that is irrelevant (and ridiculous). Besides, this is one of the most common tricks spammers use: post a "howto" tutorial on some blog, wiki or a similar website with a generic title that suggests the article deals with a general topic, to attract visitors (in this instance, "How To Burn A CD"), and then advertise their product in the article (and spam with the fake "tutorial" on Wikipedia).—J. M. (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We don't promote ways to round a website's TOS, and this is definitely one way to do it, along with promoting music piracy. Not only non-notable, but a good candidate to get DMCA'ed if we somehow kept this (not even considering the eHow-ish links mentioned above designed to scream WP:ITSNOTABLE). Nate • (chatter) 05:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent RS references. Softpedia articles with their large 'download now' buttons for the reviewed software are not independent, and howto articles are not typically seen as contributing to notability. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Dialectric (talk) 06:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AVL Trees in Java

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

Large computer science original research; POV fork of AVL tree article, basically retelling it in Java language. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:NOT (specifically, not a repository for code). Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 05:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT. —Ruud 11:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. Article deleted 21:58, 30 July 2016 by Jo-Jo Eumerus under G7. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canon ISDC

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

No evidence that the subject meets WP:ORGDEPTH notability. - Mr X 13:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the references added in list. It include newspaper article also.

Delete - companies claiming to provide "best-in-class solutions" are not inherently notable. . . Mean as custard (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:13, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:13, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:13, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inappropriate for a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 14:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too minor for inclusion. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete and I consider this hinting at A7 and G11 material, nothing at all convincing. SwisterTwister talk 18:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BRANCH, a non-notable element of a notable company. Blythwood (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. soft deletion as an uncontested PROD ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stack (mobile game)

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

Struggling to find sources to back up the claims in this article. Assumed good faith a while ago on the "10 million downloads" claim but can't find any sources to prove this. — foxj 11:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mylg

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

Fails WP:GNG notability for lack of available sources. - Mr X 11:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google offers nothing. —swpb^T 15:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails both GNG and NSOFT as I can't find any credible, independent sources to corroborate this product. GAB^gab 21:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What a lazy owner didn't add extra information or incomplete sources and/or article. --Junior5a (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Article in question was created by a blocked user in violation of their block, and has been deleted per G5. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 15:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kyaa Kool Hai Hum (film series)

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

This article is almost entirely a copy paste of plot summaries, cast lists, and box office revenue from the other three articles (Kyaa Kool Hai Hum, Kyaa Super Kool Hain Hum, and Kyaa Kool Hain Hum 3). There's no evidence that the series as an independent subject is notable. - Mr X 11:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: All film series plot summaries, cast lists, and box office revenue are copied from original Articles. See Below for More Details.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is clear enough DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Howard

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

Delete. Comprehensively fails General Notability Guideline. Not only that, most of the content on the page was added by Natehoward91, which based on his age from the sources seem to be Nate himself or that they are either are his friends, peers, or his publicist. The entirety of Natehoward91 contributions are on this page. Hence my nomination for deletion. Shamenotnow (talk) 02:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamenotnow (talk • contribs) 09:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the nominator left a neutrally worded message on my user talk page asking for my input. I would say that Google News does show some reliable sources about the article subject. Coverage is mostly in the San Diego area (but I don't see any policy-based requirement for nonlocal coverage for biographical articles) but not significant enough, at least not yet, to meet WP:BASIC. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable poet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removed debate from the United States discussions list, as it now appears in the California list. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anda Adam

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

Was previously redirected to her single, but recreated by User:XXN with the comment "restored article. Notable person (via both MUSICBIO & GNC). You are free to start an AFD if you disagree". No independent, reliable sources or any assertion of notability in the article; the second sentence says that she is best known for My Love On You. Slashme (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: about Anda Adam were written a lot of media articles & news, and thus she passes even GNC (Google returns for me 8.42 million of results for "Anda Adam", with several very fresh articles: 10 hours ago, 13 hours ago, 2 days ago, etc. etc.). Also, as a top female Romanian singer she entered several times in Romanian national music charts:

2010 - 26. ANDA ADAM - LOVE ON YOU
       85. SASHA LOPEZ FEAT. ANDA ADAM - MADAM

2012 - 75. KOUROSH TAZMINI FEAT. ANDA ADAM - CAN U FEEL LOVE

2013 - 46. ANDA ADAM - AMO
       59. ANDA ADAM - DACA AR FI
2014 - 86. ANDA ADAM - DACA AR FI
2015 - 59. ANDA ADAM FEAT. C.R.B.L. - SERI DE MAI

http://mediaforest.ro/Charts/Chart2010.aspx
http://mediaforest.ro/Charts/Chart2012.aspx
http://mediaforest.ro/Charts/Chart2013.aspx
http://mediaforest.ro/Charts/Chart2014.aspx
http://mediaforest.ro/Charts/Chart2015.aspx

--XXN, 19:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - XXN has a penchant for creating articles about random Romanian musicians, and this is no exception. He seems to base his entire "keep" argument around the fact that the subject placed on the mediaforest charts - but what he conveniently fails to mention is that no official Romanian chart exists any longer, and that mediaforest has no real standing to make such determinations. He also avers that "a lot of media articles & news" exist regarding the subject, but of course fails to tell us what any of these are.
Anyway, assuming My Love on You is a notable topic (I have my doubts, but let's grant it for argument's sake), and as it seems this is the only remotely notable thing the subject has done, there is zero need to duplicate content by having two articles. Delete or, if we can all be sensible about this, redirect. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect: Seeing as how there is a target article that has passed GNG, best not to leave a redlink out there. If this is a plausible search term, best to have it land somewhere lest the article just be recreated. Merge/redirects are also in line with WP:BEFORE. Montanabw ^(talk) 05:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here are some sources of information (in Romanian) that can be used to improve the article: Agerpres, UTV, Apropo TV, Radar de media. The Agerpres article mentions some prizes and awards won by Anda Adam, including the Romanian Music Awards in 2010 (for My Love On You), and a platinum disc for the sales of the Confidential album in 2007 (see Mediafax and Jurnalul Național). Razvan Socol (talk) 05:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to My Love on You. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Razvan Socol. She won and was nominated for multiple awards at the 2010 Romanian Music Awards and has made appearances at the show as recent as 2014. 1 I've added some references to the article. Article needs expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 00:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable for awards at the Romanian Music Awards, and the platinum disc. MurielMary (talk) 10:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear pass of WP:MUSIC 2 (My Love On You), 3 (Confidential, platinum), 5 (twelve albums), and 9 (2010 Romanian Music Awards). The Steve 16:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Blanked by article creator. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) GermanJoe (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Verushka Scalia

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

Likely non-notable actress. Current sources are mere listings or passing mentions for her roles (some of them not in reliable sources). Google search didn't show any in-depth coverage. The article also includes lots of irrelevant tangential details and non-neutral exaggerating descriptions. None of her activities (minor roles in telenovelas, some commercials and modeling, unspecified productions) clearly indicate notability. Topic doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Note: I have removed 2 unreliable sources (IMDB, a blacklisted forum) and cleaned up a bit before this nomination. GermanJoe (talk) 08:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - article has been blanked by author, see also help request at User talk:Le producteur for more info. I left some additional advice for a possible future draft, in case additional sources become available later. GermanJoe (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 09:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 09:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Georg Kraus

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources, sourcing is mostly by him, not about him. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Kraus is a non-notable expert in business.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough GS citations to satisfy WP:Prof#C1 yet: WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

National Fart Day

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

This article doesn't cite any reliable sources, and I can't find any. Graham87 07:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Anyone can make up a goofy holiday, and have it added to a few of the many silly websites that promote such foolishness. This falls under WP:MADEUP. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a real holiday, even if it did exist, no notability of any kind has been established. Ajf773 (talk) 09:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is NOTATHING. GAB^gab 13:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and fails WP:N(E). The lack of reliable sources suggests that few caught wind of this holiday. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Silich

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just another one of countless plastic surgeons, who is not notable just because his practice is located in Manhattan, as that island does not transfer notability to its inhabitants. The New York Times reference is not significant biographical coverage of Silich as a surgeon or as a person, but rather a passing mention and a quotation by him. New You is a beauty, fashion, entertainment, lifestyle magazine which I do not consider a reliable source for determining the notability of a surgeon or academic. As an assistant professor, he does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. A Google search brings up coverage of a murderer with the same surname, but not much else. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another promotional article on a non-notable plastic surgeon. We have far too many of these.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Undoubtedly created for the purposes of promotion. Although he has written professionally, the citation count is low (a 42 max). Being featured in beauty magazines does not confirm his medical notability. LaMona (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Lenhart

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

I'm not seeing much for coverage. Was active in the 2000s. She has a starring role in 5 cm, I's, and Aika R-16/Zero, and possibly main in Haibane, but none of those are real standout roles in the anime industry. Only one anime convention appearance. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable voice actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is nothing more than an IMDB retread. — Wylie pedia 05:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Paul Townsend (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) SST flyer 10:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Townshend

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

This DAB page isn't serving a purpose. I checked - there's only one Paul Townshend mentioned on all of Wikipedia and it's Pete's brother. The other entry is a guy with a similar name. This is a WP:TWODABS scenario if you count the second entry as legitimate (it probably isn't) and even then there's no ambiguity here. Nohomersryan (talk) 04:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Paul Townsend (disambiguation) This page, Paul Townshend, was created as a dab for those named Paul Towns(h)end as per the introductory line, with or without the h. There's no difference in the pronunciation between the two, so they are easily confused. Paul Townshend (musician) is mentioned in several WP articles, and so if readers are looking for him we want to make it clear we have info on him. Paul Townsend (disambiguation) has recently been created, so a merge and redirect there seems the best option - only a small number of entries so won't overload the reader, and whichever spelling the reader uses, we'll let them know all the Paul Towns(h)ends we have info on. Boleyn (talk) 10:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Boleyn. Townsend and Townshend are pronounced identically in British English. One DAB page will suffice for both spellings. Narky Blert (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nohomersryan, what do you think of the proposed solution? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 10:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. Nohomersryan (talk) 15:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per SNOW. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bushmaster XM-15

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't know anything about firearms, but it's not clear that this rifle is notable in its own right. It it already mentioned several times in the AR-15 article. It does have a brief mention in the one referenced book, but besides that I can only find a few YouTube videos mentioning it and sales at some gun stores. Pianoman320 (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is among the most popular and notable of the AR-15 pattern weapons. Two classes of variants within the product line have articles of their own, Carbon 15 and Bushmaster M4-type Carbine. If there was a concern about notbility the sensible thing would be to merge those articles into the parent article. Many talk page comments across mhave suggested creating this page. See Talk:Bushmaster_M4-type_Carbine#Move_content_to_Bushmaster_XM-15, for example. Further, the weapon is notable for its use in several highly prominent shootings, including the Beltway sniper attacks and the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, both of which resulted in major lawsuits against the manufacturer. I agree that most generic AR-15s are not notable, but this is an exception. [Note: the article is at Bushmaster XM-15, but I've requested a move to Bushmaster XM15, which is how the manufacturer spells it.]Felsic2 (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Also known from a few shootings, I think this rifle should have its own article. Here is a few news articles found in HighBeam. Ilyushka88 | ^Talk! _Contribs 03:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the verdict is "keep", there is a request by User:Felsic2 to move Bushmaster XM-15 to Bushmaster XM15; he says "The un-hyphenated version is the official name.". (Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)}[reply]

No longer true, Bushmaster's 2016 sales brochure hyphenates it. Herr Gruber (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. If you don't know anything about firearms, stop editing firearms articles. Please, read Wikipedia:Competence is required and stop wasting our time.--RAF910 (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable and properly sourced. Nominating it for deletion is clearly frivolous. ~~, and part of a crusade against guns of all kinds that Felsic2 is pursuing here.~~ Thomas.W ^talk 19:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Um, actually he put the article up, it's someone else trying to delete it. Herr Gruber (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my bad. Thomas.W ^talk 19:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable and popular firearm. Also has a bizarre habit of showing up in high-profile incidents (off-hand I can think of the Beltway Sniper attacks, 2007 Colorado YWAM and New Life shootings, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and North Hollywood shootout, and the shooter in the Capitol Hill massacre had one in his truck too). Herr Gruber (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, "If you don't know anything about firearms, stop editing firearms articles.", editors are encouraged to BE WP:BOLD, although also to be WP:CAREFUL, putting this article up for afd may have not been the best way to go, a query on its talkpage, and at Firearms project may have been more appropriate, anyway Keep as article is well sourced and meets WP:GNG. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable and properly sourced.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 07:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Spam posted by the company Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bigdataforce

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

Fails WP:NCOMPANY. The only sources I can find on this company are business directories that simply show its existence. Even the external link provided to the company's website is broken. Drm310 (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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