From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 11 August 13 August >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy Keep. Nomination withdrawn. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 23:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Mr 2Kay

Mr 2Kay (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of the article fails WP:NMUSIC. I can't find the significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 22:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

You are funny! How does it passes WP:GNG? Where are the significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources that establish the subject notability? Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 23:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

 Comment:. After another look, I discovered the subject of the article meet WP:GNG. On this not am closing the debate as Keep. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 23:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. T. Canens ( talk) 22:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Emil Tîmbur

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

There is an insignificant source of this article, I cannot find any reliable source regarding the notability of this Emil Tîmbur article. The article claims that he is a footballer which comes under WP:Footy but can't find any WP:NOTABLE on Google or any other search, It all appears he is student footballer without any popularity. Prince Sulaiman Talk to me 22:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. -- MelanieN ( talk) 02:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Tiburon Incorporated

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

The sources in the article do not provide substantial in-depth coverage of the subject. I have searched for sources to see whether WP:CORP is met but only found a local newspaper discussing a court case and very brief mentions also in local news: [1] [2]. Other than that there was only press releases or routine coverage of a merger in a specialist publication [3]. SmartSE ( talk) 22:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom, once the PR fluff was trimmed out of the article, there was nothing left. Brianhe ( talk) 15:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. CorporateM ( Talk) 01:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. I checked the sources: They simply mention that this company has received a contract of one kind or another. Nothing substantive. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 05:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect - to owner Gores Group. The Baltimore Sun article is significant coverage, about problems with a large contract in a major city. but the other refs are weak as noted above, and with only one solid RS significant coverage source, notability is not estabilshed. A redirect to the notable parent company is reasonable. Dialectric ( talk) 10:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as my searches found nothing good and convincing. SwisterTwister talk 17:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. -- MelanieN ( talk) 02:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Penguin Point

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

Article does not have any independent, reliable, strong sources to be found. Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. The only sources I could find were local newspapers featuring a section about local businesses and a passing mention from elkharttruth.com Jcmcc ( Talk) 21:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • CommentIt does have 13 locations. As a "regional" chain you'd expect most sources to be local(ish) and a quick Google News search picks up some decent sources. [4] I would lean towards keep, but maybe someone else will be more thorough than me. CorporateM ( Talk) 01:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG only searches are adverts, no independent RSs. Pincrete ( talk) 18:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete advert for a local chain, only source in the article is the subject's own website, web searches turn up a little bit of routine local promotional coverage, fails WP:CORPDEPTH Kraxler ( talk) 15:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. -- MelanieN ( talk) 02:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Mirza Ghulam Qadir Beg

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

Original research based on a single unreliable source and, perhaps, the personal knowledge of the author, whose name implies a relationship to the subject. The page author has written on Talk:Mirza Ghulam Qadir Beg that this article "contains vital information about the history of Jammu and Kashmir that has not been documented until now regarding the contributions of Mirza Ghulam Qadir Beg to the freedom struggle and the development of Kashmir". If the history has not been previously documented, it has no place on Wikipedia. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 21:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Tentative delete unless it can be improved as basically the best my searches found was this. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOTMEMORIAL and it's not a repository of WP:OR, the only source cited in the article is a blog-post in an e-paper. Kraxler ( talk) 15:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 03:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Nikole Hannah-Jones

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

WP:BLP of a journalist which makes and sources no strong claim of notability under WP:JOURNALIST — it just asserts that she exists, and sources it almost entirely to primary sources, such as her "our writers" profiles on the websites of the publications she writes for, or articles in which she's the bylined author rather than, as required to pass our notability rules, the subject. The only source here that's about her in any substantive way is #6, which is just a blurb on the news blog of a marketing agency. Nothing here is the kind of sourcing that gets a journalist into Wikipedia — and all of it is piled up as a single WP:REFBOMB on the fact that she exists, in an article that contains no substantive content about her beyond the fact that she exists. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if it can be sourced properly. Bearcat ( talk) 21:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • User:Neptune's Trident For a journalist to have an article, it is necessary that reliable sources have written about her and her career. The fact that she has been published by major news outlets is not sufficient. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 11:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    added a minor prize to the page. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 11:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep Subject has more than enough references to be notable. Neptune's Trident ( talk) User:Neptune's Trident is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT.
  • User:Neptune's Trident. Ihis is not a vote. It is a process to query notability and reach consensus. Your "keep" !vote is meaningless. The effective approach is to find sources and bring them here or put them on the page. the sources need to be reputable publications that report on her and her career. Not the bylines you used as "references." E.M.Gregory ( talk) 19:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
No, it doesn't. The article cites no substantive coverage in reliable secondary sources, but is based almost entirely on her own self-penned public relations profiles on primary source websites. The only legitimate secondary source you added anywhere in the entire article is a blurb of less than 100 words in length, which thus fails to count as substantive coverage. Having profiles on the websites of her own employers is not how any person ever gets into Wikipedia — it takes substantive coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the subject. E.M. Gregory added the article's only solid source — but that's still not enough to get her into Wikipedia if it's the article's only substantive source and no other coverage can be found besides that. Bearcat ( talk) 15:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I agree article was in bad shape. And I agree a journalist should not being notable if they only have bylines but the content is not about the subject. However, this is not the case with this Nikole Hannah-Jones. First, her reporting on resegregation is becoming the story: her reports have been widely hailed here and here and have inspired new thinking about worsening segregation in schools; her work exposing the "deep correlations between housing and poverty" was cited here. Second, she won numerous awards (my count => 8; see article). Third, writing for NY Times magazine and Atlantic etc is pretty much the top of the US journalistic pyramid. Fourth, she is seen by the journalistic community as the go-to person on civil rights. Fifth, she has been a panelist on national radio broadcasts such as PBS and NPR. Sixth, she gave a TED talk. Article improved as per WP:HEYMANN. There are in-depth articles about her here and here and here and here. Overall, a serious investigative journalist.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 19:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I'm with Tom here. Although some of the links are staff bios on employers' sites, overall it adds up, the awards, the citations, and the invitations as panelist and speaker. She doesn't just exist, she's been noted (and cited) by quite a lot of people. WP:JOURNALIST # 1 and # 4 a and c. Kraxler ( talk) 16:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 03:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Gender mainstreaming in mine action

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

I have visited this periodically to see if it has moved from being an essay into being an article. I have concluded that it has not.

I have tried to determine what this piece is. What I see is a well enough referenced propaganda piece for a good cause. But Wikipedia is not for promotion of causes, however good they are.

This is a WP:AFC piece accepted by a reviewer with the wisdom to give it a chance in main namespace, in the hope that it would be turned into an article instead of an essay. That has not taken place, and my opinion is that it cannot take place, because this is a promotional piece in favour of a cause. Fiddle Faddle 20:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep for now - give it more time. This article is very new and still being actively edited (created in March 2015 and most edited August 10 2015). Perhaps inviting the editors to the talk page to discuss how to make the transition would be a better solution. There's obviously a lot of good content here, a plenty of sources. LaMona ( talk) 21:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment In general we apply the criteria for article deletion or retention to all articles whatever their state of development. While there is also no deadline on Wikipedia, articles that start out borderline and remain borderline with during the WP:AFC process and substantially after their entry into the main namespace can be considered to have had their chance. Such good material as there may be appears to be concealed in much fluff and clutter, so much that creating a précis of it appears to be next to impossible. Such detail as there is has already been covered in mine action. I see insufficient material to justify this extra article. Fiddle Faddle 07:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
I was under the impression that notability of topics is judged on sources, regardless of the article quality, here at AfD. Since you didn't directly state a deletion policy above, could you say which deletion policy you are invoking in this AfD? That might make it clearer to me. Thanks. LaMona ( talk) 14:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Notabiity is based upon sources, but the article must also not be an essay, not synthesise nor be original research, may not be propaganda, may not evangelise for a good cause. We require an article that is concise, relevant, to the point, well referenced, and so much more. Please choose any you wish from the multiple policies it is in breach of. I am not required to state the policies in detail in the nomination. We discuss the proposal instead. Fiddle Faddle 16:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This article is longer than the base Mine action article. It is rather sparse on content and heavy on fluff. It could be edited down to 2 or 3 substantial paragraphs and merged into Mine Action with a link to Gender mainstreaming. Having an entire 23 paragraph article including all minutiae seems excessive. WP:BECONCISE WP:BLOATED-- Savonneux ( talk) 02:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I keep looking and looking at it and am failing to find anything that can be added to the Mine clearance article except a line to the effect that gender mainstreaming has a role to play in the clearance/action, together with a reference. GM has a role to play in pretty much every aspect of life, and a proliferation of Gender mainstreaming in foo articles seems to me to be unwise. I would be content with an outcome "Merge to mine action and remove the bloat". Fiddle Faddle 07:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I was being generous. The section on dogs in the mine clearing article only has one sentence.-- Savonneux ( talk) 07:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The article does have too many primary sources, but there are at least two [5] [6] [7] good-quality sources that are specificaly about "Gender mainstreaming in mine action" and not about "Gender mainstreaming" or "mine action" separately. It appears to be notable on its own and I think reports of it being an essay are largely exaggerated. If this is longer than the main pages, it just means those main pages need further expansion, or this one needs trimming, or both, but having one page that is longer than another is not a good reason for deletion. CorporateM ( Talk) 19:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
RE:If this is longer... It wasn't listed as a reason for deletion. It was listed as a symptom of being overly detailed and full of true but trivial content. It could be better served in fleshing out the Mine action article with some heavy editing. Right now it reads like a university paper for "research the intersection of these two specific topics."-- Savonneux ( talk) 22:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I am someone who works in mine action and have been trying to edit the page and create links over the past month. Although I am new to Wikipedia editing, I do not see the difference in quality, writing style, and worthiness between this article and some of the other mine action and security links mentioned in this article such as Gender and Security Sector or other NGO's doing similar work like DCAF. There are 1000's of articles written in similar ways with trivial detail about a wide arrange of topics that one may or may not find interesting or important. As a person in Mine Action, there is definitely new content here compared to the mine action page and at least someone studying gender issues and international relations or peace and conflict & resolution might be interested in knowing those details just like I was interested in knowing more details about Al Capone while watching Boardwalk Empire yesterday. Who decides what is trivial and what is noteworthy? An article on Kim Kardashian, although more popular, is arguably more trivial in terms of impact on saving lives. Lastly, there is a bias here towards things related to gender and diversity because they don't fit white male interests. Why would there be a need for a GenderWiki if that were not the case? Bottom line, the content is accurate with sources, distinguishable from other similar content, and does not state any personal opinions, just opinions of experts, so at most one could argue that this article should be trimmed but not deleted. However, it fits typical Wikipedia format that allows the reader to get the gist from the short first entry and find more details in the table of content if they want, so shouldn't it be up to the reader decide if they want more detail or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76baronchan ( talk • contribs) 08:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Cant tell if you are accusing the editors involved in AfD of bias... In regards to the other things you mentioned:
  1. There are lots of bad articles, we are reviewing this one.
  2. There are guidelines about triviality. I didn't mean that the article was trivial, I meant that contains not only information essential to the topic but long collections of information that restate essentially the same things.-- Savonneux ( talk) 11:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I am not accusing specific editors of bias, but overall Wikipedia itself has made a call for a more diverse pool of editors and admits most are from a certain demographic. Everyone has biases.
  1. There are a lot of bad articles, yes, but there are worse ones that are not up for deletion or who have a disclaimer on its quality. Again, as a newbie, it seems there are certain articles that never get a disclaimer or who have a disclaimer forever and never get challenged for deletion, so why is this article so quickly proposed for deletion? Is it the fact that I've been editing it so much that it puts it on the radar of other editors more?
  2. I ultimately agree there should be a line to separate what is necessary information for an average reader but that is highly subjective. One reader may see this as repetitive while someone in mine action, working for the UN, or who has degrees in social studies, like myself, notices and appreciates the differences. Frankly, in order to suss out those differences more clearly, it actually needs more details and examples. Anyway, I admit most people probably wouldn't care to know these details and have no problem if it is trimmed down significantly. I'm still just trying to learn how wikipedia works but think it still has some a lot of issues which are important to debate given how powerful the information it displays can be. 76baronchan ( talk) 13:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Beware WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS as an argument for retention or deletion. It does, and it will eventually be improved or deleted. We are discussing the deletion of or improvement of this article only. Beware, also, thinking that Wikipedia is here to be useful. It is not. Wikipedia exists as an encyclopaedia. By happenstance it may also be useful. It is not here to provide information an editor believes to be necessary, but is here to record what others report. Duplication of material in articles can be considered a WP:POVFORK and is deprecated. We use Wikilinks to other articles to gain that information. You need to be aware that, as someone working in this field, your view is not neutral. WP:COI is important here. As for the notion of bias, I now feel accused of it. I admit to many biases in my life, but I do not allow them to affect my time here. Fiddle Faddle 13:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment
  1. Thanks. I am still learning how wikipedia works. I understand what the rules and guidelines are trying to do as checks and balances, but at the same time they are limited and perhaps by design fundamentally flawed when those most qualified to understand and record reported information in their field are those discouraged from participating. Editors hold a lot of power because despite what the intended purpose of wikipedia is to be as a recorder of reports, there are so many bad articles and so many people use it as their main source of fact and information. Perhaps every new editor has to get that off their chest as they continue the Herculean task of editing all this stuff.
  2. Anyway, back to this article, every statement is backed up with a supporting document or website. The sources are international and national mine action organizations and journals, the UN, other news outlets and internationally agreed upon treaties and action plans signed by most of the countries in the world. I don't see how that is not simply a recording of reports. Gender mainstreaming is an aspect of all mine action standard procedures and policies. People may agree or disagree about its effectiveness, which is why I added a criticism section to make it more neutral, but it is a reported phenomena that exists as a standard in mine action. I don't see how it is any more promotional or argumentative than any other (I know can't make this argument) page as any thing published anywhere could be seen as promotional. Perhaps it's written in a more university style way, so please edit some of the wording that is troublesome. I've tried. Perhaps more sources could be from mainstream media to support its notability, but recording what the mainstream media reports these days would be extremely limiting. The guidelines section is a bit "How to" and a simple reference to it would be enough rather than a whole section. The history section contains provides background and natural links back to other noted wiki pages, but it is only slightly different than what the Gender in Security Sector page lists. At minimum, the basic content should be included in the general mine action page or we simply trim it down in half. To me, the only debate is the noteworthiness of the details of the content after looking at all the policy/guidelines and not its overall keep-ability.
  3. By the way, were all biased in every situation and it's not necessarily a bad thing or good thing. The very fact we're debating this and all of us have different opinions show we have subjectivity/bias. My interpretation of the guidelines is different than yours, but I'm still deferring to more experienced editors, and obviously this article is more interesting for me as someone in the field. I just want it to be accurate and perhaps someone will learn from it. By the way, I am not the only editor who feels usefulness is an argument for keeping an article: WP:CARES 76baronchan ( talk) 16:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
I might point out that at the moment there is essentially one person for keep and one for delete. That's likely a no consensus close which is pretty much the same as a keep. Comments aren't counted in AfD closures.-- Savonneux ( talk) 23:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It seems to be a niche concept (how many articles can we have on mine action?) but it is reasonably sourced and somewhat notable. It can use improvement, but that is not a reason for deletion. Dimadick ( talk) 07:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. -- MelanieN ( talk) 02:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply

National Service Scheme 470 Mannar

National Service Scheme 470 Mannar (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable chapter of an organization per WP:NORG and WP:GNG Kharkiv07 ( T) 20:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom's sound analysis. -- Cavarrone 07:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless it can be improved out of the blue as my searches found nothing even minimally good. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. -- MelanieN ( talk) 02:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply

MARK209

MARK209 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article about a band. The only sources are trivial mentions in local publications and a press release. Fails WP:BAND. - Mr X 19:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. I agree that the page does not meet WP:BAND; it should also be noted that a member of the band seems to have created the page, perhaps for promotional purposes. 331dot ( talk) 21:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete no claim of notability in the article, unsourced, web searches turn up concert announcements, press releases and blogs, fails WP:NBAND Kraxler ( talk) 03:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - My searches found nothing better apart from non-significant coverage such as this. SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. -- MelanieN ( talk) 02:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply

2016–17 Newcastle United F.C. season

2016–17 Newcastle United F.C. season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article about a future sports season. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. - Mr X 19:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - A bit too soon... JMHamo ( talk) 20:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - far too soon. Giant Snowman 20:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – definitely created too soon. Either delete straight away or redirect to club article. – Soccer-holic I hear voices in my head... 13:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- obviously too soon for anything but pointless speculation. Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – It has all been said above, way too soon. Qed237  (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - obviously far too soon. Only content is a squad list for the season, which obviously can't be confirmed at this stage, and a list of staff (likewise), although the rather bold prediction that Liverpool manager Brendan Rodgers will have jumped ship to Newcastle by next August is quite intriguing.......... -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 17:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - too soon. Nfitz ( talk) 22:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - WP:TOOSOON. Fenix down ( talk) 15:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ceradon ( talk • edits) 02:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Teakettle principle

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

Nonnotable mathematical inside joke. When googling, of 77 results, if omit copycats of wikipedia and everything2, you will find only a handful of actual use, plus at least 4 other, totally different meaning of the phrase: [8], [9], [10], [11]

I can find zillions of jokes quoted in various books, but none of them become notable, for a simple reason: for notability purposes, we must have multiple sources which write about the subject in detail, rather than simply cite its usage. The very fact that nearly each time someone uses the term in a text feels obliged to quote the joke means it is simply a joke no one really knows. Compare with e.g., ' pigeonhole principle'. I've met people who use the term without even knowing what the heck it has to do with pigeons. Staszek Lem ( talk) 18:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 18:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete. It's an important principle, but maybe not under this name. Google scholar and Google books only find this phrase in use in two books, and they don't count as more than one source for the purposes of WP:GNG because one of them merely quotes the other rather than adding any new material on this subject. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, but if there is a suitable home for this article as a subsection somewhere else, I would have no opposition to merging it there. (can't find one right now, something like mathematical problem?) shoy ( reactions) 19:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. <sigh> It is not a principle. It is a mathematician cracked a joke. I an popular math book. Another famous mathematician retold it. In a serious math book. That's it. Now what is the actual name of the principle in question? The fact you cannot guess it reminds me an old joke about another scientist who was bragging about his proofreading skills and challenged his colleague to find a typo in his fresh galley proof. The college glanced at the proof, chuckled and said yes, you missed a typo. The first one was all agitated, scrutinized the proof again and denied any. In fact the typo was in his name !-) So, what is the name of principle of reducing a problem to a solved one?..... It is called ...1 ....2 ....3 .... voila!... it is called REDUCTION! And it comes in zillon flavors. And Vilenkin's joke comes with a grain of truth: very often in maths it so happens a problem may solved by a reduction to a more complex one. But contrary to common anti-geek lore, mathematicians don't sit happy at that: they strive to seek a simpler and a more elegant solution. Staszek Lem ( talk) 22:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Reduction is indeed a word for the same principle, but the only links on the reduction disambiguation page you linked to that looks close to the concept are Reduction (complexity) and Reduction (recursion theory), and those too are too technical and specific (and almost the same as each other) to be a good fit for the general concept. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens ( talk) 22:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Amazing (Alex Young album)

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

Non-notable album. Previously deleted with the artist at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Young (singer) (2nd nomination). Promoted by Walmart and listed on a Walmart chart, but does not pass any of the criteria of WP:NALBUMS. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per WP:GEOLAND and move to Suntalay Khasmahal. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 17:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Suntlay

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

Recommending deletion as I cannot find any information online to verify the existence of this particular locality. Please note that a deletion was originally proposed via {{ prod}} and later removed by the original author of this article. All attempts to communicate with the author, who now has 2 registered accounts, Niroj rai ( talk · contribs) and Niroj sharaja ( talk · contribs) have been unsuccessful, as have attempts to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination. Please notify me if appropriate sources can be located, as all populated, legally recognized places of any size are generally considered notable. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 ( talk) 17:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 19:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep with rename. India's 2011 Census includes lists of named settlements (although if it includes specific population metrics for each of them, I cannot find them). For this district, that information is here. There's no Suntlay, but there is a small village named Suntalay Khasmahal in the Kalimpong subdivision, SSW of Kalimpong, located along NH 31A, which I assume was the intended subject of this article. With that said, reliable online-available English-language sources don't offer much else than that it exists (its mentioned in a few other government sources, and name-checked in a botanical survey), so my keep here is a weak one indeed. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 15:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The consensus is that because the article has the potential to be improved based on the availability of sources, it should be kept and allowed to improve. With regards to BIO1E, the consensus appears to be that the event is notable, and that converting the biography into an article about the event is more favorable to deletion of the article outright. ( non-admin closure) Mz7 ( talk) 02:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Benito Corghi

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

Unsourced bio. Fails WP:BIO1E. - Mr X 17:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I initially would have said speedy delete as A7 (and nominated it as such), but the creator of the article left an explanation on my talk page. I removed the template initially because he/she pointed out to me two articles - Peter Fechter and Marienetta Jirkowsky - that were also about those killed while trying to cross the same border as the article subject, and thinking that the fact that they were killed constituted a WP:CCS. However, I now see two reasons why it should be deleted - the other two articles not only describe the person but also what (notable) events happened afterwards, and they are sourced and well-written. This article has neither. Also, now that I'm reconsidering, I don't really think that the fact that they got killed while crossing that particular border may be a WP:CCS, but I'm not sure. Gparyani ( talk) 05:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - The corresponding German Wikipedia article, whose content is otherwise similar enough to this one that I suspect that this was translated from there, contains two good references: this from Die Zeit on the original killing and this from Berliner Zeitung on the acquittal twenty years later of the border guard who shot the subject - the nominator should probably have checked for this in their WP:BEFORE, as it makes the "unsourced bio" reason for deletion very easy to remedy. WP:BIO1E certainly applies but in such cases, if the event is notable enough for a standalone article and does not already have one, converting the article into one about the event is usually worth considering. In this case, the situation is, one might say, rather borderline - the incident had rather less lasting emotional impact than the two referred to above by User:Gparyani (which both occurred on the Berlin Wall rather than, as in this case, on the main border between East and West Germany), but the standard GBooks search still produces quite a number of (admittedly rather brief) references. The event seems to have been distinctly embarrassing for the East Germans - this was one of rather few cases where the person killed was not either attempting to evade border security or a guard shot by friendly fire, and Corghi was a member of the Italian Communist Party - and already gets three sentences at Escape attempts and victims of the inner German border#Deaths on the border. I would prefer to see the article improved and kept, but if not, I think a redirect would be preferable to an outright deletion. PWilkinson ( talk) 12:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, this 2014 article from Il Messaggero claims Borghi's death was the only instance in which GDR formally apologized for a killing occurred along its border (quote: "Per la prima e unica volta nella sua storia, la Ddr si scusa formalmente per una uccisione avvenuta lungo il suo confine.") If confirmed, I'm leaning to keep. Cavarrone 17:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and improve - After hearing some arguments from the other side, it appears that my initial reasoning for saying delete is no longer the case. As the article was at the time it was nominated, it would merit deletion, but with a little improvement (as mentioned in the above comments), I would say that it would be better to keep it and improve it. Gparyani ( talk) 20:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - the event had some later impact, and some good coverage, it caused certainly some trouble back in 1976, I added the Italian source, which actually retells the story in much detail. The East Germans made a silly mistake, ordering the truck driver to go on, moments before the veterinary inspector came back with the certificate, they should have known that the driver can't pass on the other side without it, and should have expected him to come back, but... Kraxler ( talk) 18:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 18:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Ryan Nyambe

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

This was deleted once via proposed deletion, then recreated. The new version is a little different, maybe a little better, but the concerns from the PROD remain, namely that this individual fails the general notability guideleine as well as the specific guidelines for football articles. Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 19:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - He has played a cup match between two WP:FPL-clubs, meaning the article meets WP:NFOOTY. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 19:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or merge to appropriate team article. "NFOOTY" aside, there are clearly nowhere near enough sources to write anywhere near a full biography about this individual. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Passes WP:FOOTY has made his debut in a cup match between 2 WP:FPL clubs the lad is only 17 years and this is the start of the Season.See no point deleting it now. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 01:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTBALL according to BBC [1] NextGenSam619 t@lk 06:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - meets NFOOTY. Fenix down ( talk) 13:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 18:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; Started in the First team squad against Shrewsbury Town as referenced in article. [2] Please note have found out some further information including where he was born. User:RoverTheBendInSussex User talk:RoverTheBendInSussex 13:45, 14 August 2015 (GMT)
  • Keep - doesn't technically meet the letter of NFOOTBALL, as the League Cup is a cup for members of England's fully professional leagues, and not a professional league in itself. However, I think the spirit of the guideline is met. 88.106.30.200 ( talk) 21:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - we've always considered those appearing in a League Cup match between 2 teamps listed in WP:FPL as notable. No case has been made why this article should be treated any differently. Nfitz ( talk) 22:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens ( talk) 22:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Life, Sex & Death

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

Band of questionable notability. Only minor footnotes about them, failed CD, failed tours. Two songs "appeared" on Beavis and Butthead. Ridernyc ( talk) 17:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - My searches found absolutely nothing with the closest relevance being this (a few websites toward the bottom, with which I'm not familiar). With no signs of notability and improvement, there's nothing to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete only source is MySpace, non-notable band Kraxler ( talk) 18:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom. Searches result in nothing to show notability, closest thing would be the Beavis show, but that is uncited and I can find no other reference to it. Regardless, even then, I don't think that meets the 10th criteria in WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 TT me 14:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens ( talk) 22:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply

AntiProduct

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

Can not find anything to establish notability. This is made more difficult by the bands genric name which it shares with other bands. All I can find is twitter (only 500 followers), last.fm (only a few thousand plays in a decade). Ridernyc ( talk) 17:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete They exist. That's about all I can say about them. News hit turned up nothing, even a generic Google search had only Myspace, Facebook, and lastfm. Primefac ( talk) 09:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Overall, there's no good sources to suggest improvement with the best results being here, here, here and this (thefreelibrary, says "AntiProduct are fast becoming one of the most talked about bands in the underground worldwide"). SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Clearly non-notable. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 12:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - searches show nothing which meets either WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 TT me 14:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens ( talk) 22:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply

StudentVoice

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

Web searches reveal nothing to show notability. Most of the hits were on several different items which use studentvoice. The only good source I could find is the one (raw link) reference which is currently in the article from the Guardian. Onel5969 TT me 17:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I agree and basically the best results I found were this and this. Simply nothing to suggest improvement, SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - only source is the subject's own website, web searches turn up a lot of things aboit students and voices but nothing on this organization, except this which describes it as a "social enterprise". Kraxler ( talk) 18:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Cautionary Tales (disambiguation)

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

There are only two articles with this title, therefor the disambiguatyion page is quite redundant. Disambiguation is specifically ment to differentiate between article titles, not subjects. -- [[ User:Edokter]] {{ talk}} 16:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Since when do we disambiguate by article title as opposed to content Cautionary Tales (Belloc) exists in Google Books. In ictu oculi ( talk) 17:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Boleyn - many valid entries, several of which would have merited a redirect to the article they are mentioned in (eg author) if they had been the only usage of the phrase; as they are not, a dab page is perfectly appropriate. Pam D 19:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted A7 by Sergecross73. (non-admin close) shoy ( reactions) 16:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Henry the Stickman

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

An unremarkable flash game which has not been covered in any reliable source. Only hits online appear to be YouTube videos or sites which host the game. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 15:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I can't find anything either. The 1600 ghits dwindle to 60 when you reach the seventh page, and not one looks like a reliable independent source. The article itself is not very encyclopaedic, and doesn't clearly explain that this is a series of games rather than a set of short stories, or YouTube videos, or whatever. Peridon ( talk) 15:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens ( talk) 22:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Soul Seekers

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

Non notable novel; I'm not finding substantial third-party coverage for it. No offered references or claims (awards, etc). Mikeblas ( talk) 15:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or redirect to Neelam Saxena Chandra - My searches found nothing good at all to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and above editors. Searches showed nothing to suggest notability. Onel5969 TT me 14:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Weekly Shōnen Jump#Features. ceradon ( talk • edits) 02:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Black Clover

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

There is no significant coverage by reliable third-party sources that attempt to establish the notability of this recently published manga series, hence seems to fail WP:GNG and more specifically, WP:BK. KirtZJ ( talk) 14:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Weekly Shōnen Jump#Features, although this has been published in English reviews are spotty. I have no objection to taking this out of being a redirect if/when more sources come forward. Given that two editors have been blocked regarding this article recently it is something that needs to be watched. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 18:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Only coverage so far is by primary sources (Shonen Jump in US) and its shadowed ANN announcements. Has not appeared in Media Arts DB. Has it charted on Oricon? Needs the slew of anime and manga reviews from Fandom post, Publishers Weekly, Kirkus, ANN itself. ' AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 19:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Pomona_College#Campus_organizations. Overall consensus is to redirect, If anyone wants to merge I obviously suggest they visit the TP. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply

The Student Life

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

Page is not notable. Uses only primary sources. This is something that is absolutely not Wikipedia worthy. DaltonCastle ( talk) 01:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails GNG sovereign° sentinel (contribs) 09:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into Pomona College without prejudice towards recreating the article with appropriate sources. While it seems to me that one of the oldest student newspapers in California should be considered notable, I was unable to find sources online to satisfy the notability guideline. -- torri2( talk/ contribs) 21:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 ( talk) 00:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or redirect page to Pomona College; not notable to stand alone. Kierzek ( talk) 15:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens ( talk) 22:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Eustachian (band)

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

The topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources ( ?) enough to build a full article. No major secondary source coverage. No suitable merge targets. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources are found. –  czar 22:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - not even a hint at notabiity in the article, no coverage, no sources. Kraxler ( talk) 16:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. ceradon ( talk • edits) 02:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Ultra Machine

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

Article topic is not the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. ( ?) It only had passing mentions in a video game reliable sources custom Google search, where it was commonly affiliated with Gunpei Yokoi as one of his works. Same goes for a Google Books search, where the Ultra Machine is not independently notable from Yokoi. I'd be fine with a redirect to the creator, but my redirect was contested. Please {{ ping}} me if you offline and non-English refs. –  czar 00:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 14:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 14:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 14:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • There seems to be a good number of books on Google that are not written by Yokoi that discuss this item. The coverage may not be quite in depth enough to meet notability, but there is a good likelihood that other off line sources are available given that this is an item from the 1960s, predating Google by quite a bit. At a minimum the sourceable content should be merged to either Yokoi or Nintendo, but I could see keeping. Deletion or even redirecting without covering the subject in the target article would be contrary to WP:PRESERVE. Rlendog ( talk) 01:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Another possibility would be to merge this and the other Ultra toys into an Ultra series (toy) article. Rlendog ( talk) 01:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
It's not discussed as much as mentioned. Speculation that coverage might exist isn't particularly helpful to us here. And we shouldn't be merging unsourced material—I think we agree that a redirect to Yokoi would be appropriate. –  czar 19:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply
A list could potentially work, but I haven't seen any coverage of this stuff that wasn't in the context of Yokoi creating it. I certainly haven't seen coverage of the "Ultra" toys as a series or group, and "Nintendo toys" might be confusing considering how many "toys" (read: amiibo) Nintendo continues to make. We should be working backwards from the sources. I think a merge definitely makes sense and a list would be fine if the scope fit, but I don't see how the listed toys have enough coverage apart from Yokoi to justify their own list. If anything, I would merge to Yokoi and spin out a "List of toys designed by Gunpei Yokoi" if and when the reliable, secondary sourcing warranted it. –  czar 21:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply
If all the coverage is in the context of Yokoi creating it, then a merge to Yokoi's article would be appropriate. But as long as the sources weren't written by Yokoi (and they are not) then the relationship with Yokoi is not relevant to their notability. Rlendog ( talk) 21:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens ( talk) 22:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Flex Multimedia Group

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

not notable. majority of edits come from a small core of users who've made no other contributions to wikipedia Rayman60 ( talk) 20:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 00:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Of the two references, one comes up blank, the other names Flex as the publisher of some magazines in a long list of magazines. I found one small quote in a newspaper but no articles about the company. LaMona ( talk) 18:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ceradon ( talk • edits) 03:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Arthur Swersey

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

Biography of an academic who appears to have been hired on the basis of a successful but non-notable consulting career, and who does not pass the notability guidelines for academics. His publications are few (for an academic of his level) and not particularly well cited (top citations less than 100, and an h-index of only 11, both very low for an Ivy League full professor in a technical subject), and I only found one book review of one book (listed in the article), so I don't think he passes WP:PROF#C1 nor WP:AUTHOR. I found no other evidence of passing the other WP:PROF criteria, and other than the book review the only other independent source we have is a wedding announcement. I tried prodding this, but DGG deprodded it, citing as evidence that he had published a book (not the book currently mentioned in the article, a different one that turns out to be an edited volume rather than something actually written by the subject, with no reviews). I don't think that's adequate, and I don't see any other reason for keeping this one. Usually full professors at good universities end up passing the criteria and being kept, but I think this one could be an exception. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete; Fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Nothing of particular interest here, and no claim to fame. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 18:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment To save anyone the trouble of looking for it behind the paywall, the NYT reference is just an marriage announcement--not an advertisement, but one they include in the news section, and irrelevant to notability; I'm not certain the degree to which they even verify the facts ) DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I consider that anyone whom Yale considers sufficiently important in his subject to give a full professorship to is notable; they are better placed to judge it than we are. David E, are you seriously saying that they would make this appointment to someone who is not an expert in their field? I'm not at all sure of the citation standards in the special area in which he works, but there are many fields of applied science where the actual citation figures are rather low. Looking at the google scholar results for "emergency deployment", his chapter is the 6th most heavily cited item. There are apparently two books Testing 1-2-3: Experimental Design with Applications in Marketing and Service Operations for which he is coauthor, and Delivery of urban services : with a view towards applications in management science and operations research for which he is co-editor; I agree this does not meet N:AUTHOR. DGG ( talk ) 00:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC) reply
    • No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm sure they had good reasons for making this appointment, which I intended to convey with my remark about "successful but not notable" — it appears that this may be an appointment grounded in practical work rather than academic impact. But I think that unless there is publicly available evidence for the significance of his work (of the kind that might well have been available privately to the Yale hiring committee) then we have no basis for an article here. — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 00:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Being given a full professorship by Yale does not meet any notability creteria. Only being the a holder of a named chair can make a professor notable for such. Nothing else about him passes notability requirements. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per DGG above. His field has little literature per se, and he's widely cited within it. It's a mere stub, and his notability is at least enough for that. If there's potential for expansion in the future, we can discuss appropriate sources for it. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 16:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - searches showed nothing which would meet the criteria of WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMICS. Don't agree with the assessment that being a professor at Yale qualifies. Per criteria #5 of WP:NACADEMICS, that simply isn't enough. And can find nothing which says this person meets any of the 9 criteria for academics. Onel5969 TT me 14:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. This is obvious spam (G11) but the subject is not notable either per the comments at the AFD. SmartSE ( talk) 09:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Tosin Oduwole

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

Only sources are for the development of a house as part of a fraternity, meaning the subject fails WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Conifer ( talk) 07:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply

So can I do edits to the article to match the information available from the news sources? So that subject makes sense? Let me know. Adj48n ( talk) 12:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 ( talk) 00:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, I could not find any coverage from independent RSs. Pincrete ( talk) 19:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as my searches found nothing good at all apart from this and this last one seems to be for someone else from Illinois. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ceradon ( talk • edits) 03:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Flexible Support Fund

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG. Focuses quite a but on a controversy- perhaps WP:NPOV issues. I can't seem to view one of the sources. Another is the daily mirror, frowned upon per WP:PUS. The third appears to be a government source (not independent from the subject). At this time, on my end, it really only has one reliable source. Most other sources I can find are directly involved with the fund ( WP:NRVE). Perhaps a mention at Welfare state in the United Kingdom or another article similar to that (maybe not that one specifically) would be warranted, but I'm not sure about a stand alone article.— Godsy( TALK CONT) 04:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 16:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply
I disagree with deletion. It will be interesting what other people think DanielJCooper ( talk) 17:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (possibly merge) -- The UK benefits system comprises a number of separate benefits. It is appropriate to have articles on each, particularly ones that may have a lower profile. A Government source providing information about what benefits that government is providing may not be an independent source, but it will not be unreliable. I agree that what the Daily Mirror said about it is insignificant. Godsy's suggested merge target will certainly be far too general, but it is possible there is a potential merge target that is more closely related to the subject. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment [12] This states investigation was actually a C4 Dispaches one not a Daily Mirror. Personally I find it notable that a Government Dept is trying to deter applicants to this fund. DanielJCooper ( talk) 20:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment There are lots of features of the UK welfare system beyond the main benefits that are covered poorly on Wikipedia. It is an area of systemic bias. Before I started we didn't have articles on the Work Programme or even the bedroom tax. Areas for improvement: Discretionary Housing Payment, Exceptional Housing Payment the post-Social Fund Local Welfare Assistance Schemes, Budgeting Loans, Hardship payments. Unfortunately much of this is only stuff would ever know about unless you work in a Citizens Advice Bureau in a deprived area and people who make use of budgeting loans don't seem to edit wikipedia. If this article survives I might try and improve things a bit DanielJCooper ( talk) 20:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Anyone else? Ironically putting this article up for deletion is detering me from improving it in case it gets deleted anyway! I'm happy to work on it if it survives DanielJCooper ( talk) 17:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Supporting DanielJCooper. He's willing to fix the article, let's wait and see if the fix works. Will check back the article (if it's kept) in a month and nominate it for deletion, if no fix has been applied. Regards— ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Always in favor of keeping an article which might be brought up to standards. Go for it, DanielJCooper. Onel5969 TT me 14:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens ( talk) 22:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Everyday Explorers

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

This seems like an obvious case of non-notability as all my searches found nothing good aside from other related things and it also seems this website may no longer exist as a click through a search engine simply takes you to the main National Geographic website each time. With no possibility of merging (from what I can see) and no improvement, there's nothing to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 16:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 16:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 16:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I agree "Everyday Explorer" looks like it's no longer in use and there have not been significant contributions to the page in years. Maybe redirect to the main National Geographic article? If not, I vote delete. Knope7 ( talk) 02:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete If they do not exist and there's no information, no reason to redirect. Additionally, the name is in use for other entities,. eg Everyday Explorers Early learning Center, which are not notable, so the redirect would be misleading. DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom and Knope7 and DGG above. Can find nothing to establish notability. Onel5969 TT me 14:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens ( talk) 22:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply

The Shreds of Character

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

I cannot find anything to suggest that this self-published book is notable enough for an entry. WP:ITEXISTS, but existing does not make it pass WP:NBOOK and a look through WP:INDIA's newspaper search did not bring up any results in Indian English newspapers. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 16:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK. References cited in article are not reliable. Google brings up less then 30 links to unreliable sites, WorldCat brings up no library holdings, this appears to be a case of self promotion as article was created by (almost) one article creator, Jasbir pro who appears to be author of the book, Jasbir S Jagdeo, see [13]. Coolabahapple ( talk) 15:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as first of all, there's no article for the author and there seems to be nothing to support one and my searches also found nothing good (FWIW, it seems the online reviews for this weren't all that good). SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - searches came up with nothing to show it meets the notability criteria. Onel5969 TT me 14:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens ( talk) 22:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Zeliha Uzunbilek

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

Fails WP:NTRACK Sulfurboy ( talk) 15:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 10:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Searches don't reveal anything to show notability. Onel5969 TT me 14:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ceradon ( talk • edits) 03:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Rubber Road

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

I can't find any sources discussing this organisation. Sam Walton ( talk) 14:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 15:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No good + solid sources available. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 19:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. Two articles aren't appropriate for the same small company, but the refs look OK so one should be kept. Szzuk ( talk) 21:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Hello User:Szzuk, I also thought a merge might make sense, specifically into comparison shopping#Niche players, but consensus was to delete TradeInDetectives a second time. As an aside, the refs are 'okay' but they are pretty bursty aka narrow in timeframe (Aug'13-Dec'13) and to a lesser extent in diversity (100% English-only and 90% videogame press albeit there are a couple in more-mainstream-publishers). Can you please say where specifically you would want to merge? 75.108.94.227 ( talk) 20:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 10:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as the article does not show how the company is notable. Ana r chyte 12:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens ( talk) 22:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply

OTOXO Productions

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

Fails WP:ORG. Refbomb of brief mentions in blogs, self-published sources, programming announcements, etc.... but lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Vrac ( talk) 12:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC) reply
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: The term 'award winning' has now been removed from the article Johnotoxo ( talk) 09:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 10:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete- what a pain in the butt articles like this are, which simply slather on raw links to promotional fluff to make it appear notable. Sure this production company exists, sure it has output. But nothing here shows that they are notable, and searches turned up nothing either. Onel5969 TT me 15:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Warren Zevon. ceradon ( talk • edits) 03:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Mohammed's Radio

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

Attempted redirect but was reverted by creator, the seemingly millionth article in the string of new creations from Visnvoisnvo, another that fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. Only references are that of two to AllMusic and one to an unreliable Fleetwood Mac fansite. Azealia911 talk 11:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to Warren Zevon: fails GNG and NSONGS. NSONGS also says "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article", which does not seem to be the case here even if we ignore notability. — Bilorv (talk) (c) (e) 14:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. The current article doesn't even hint at the potential notability of "Mohammed's Radio". But evidence exists to establish it as not only a notable but an objectively important song. John Rockwell devotes pages to it—both the Zevon original and Linda Ronstadt's version from Living in the USA—in his book Stranded: Rock and Roll for a Desert Island, where among other things he describes it as "an artistic breakthrough" for Ronstadt. [14] GBooks also yields other significant commentary such as [15] [16] [17] [18] Briefer references note that the song inspired an independent film of the same title [19], and Dave Marsh put it near the top of a list of "best songs about radio" [20] -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 15:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 10:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Zevon's article. Clearly fails WP:NSONG, but could use the redirect. If not, delete. Onel5969 TT me 15:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ceradon ( talk • edits) 03:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Khayal Dzhaniev

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

Non-notable kickboxer - does not meet WP:KICK or WP:GNG. The contested PROD was for the same reason. Peter Rehse ( talk) 12:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 12:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • As best I can tell these articles are all either announcements of upcoming fights or fight results, making the coverage routine and insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Thank you for providing native spellings, but using them I still didn't find what I believe is significant independent coverage. Papaursa ( talk) 16:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Definitely doesn't meet the notability criteria for kickboxers at WP:KICK. As I said above, the references given and my own search didn't find the coverage I believe is necessary to meet WP:GNG. Admittedly, I had to rely on computer translations so I will reconsider my vote if evidence can be provided to show he does have significant non-routine coverage. Papaursa ( talk) 16:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Non-notable kickboxer and routine sports coverage doesn't meet WP:GNG. Mdtemp ( talk) 15:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom, Papaursa, and Mdtemp. He exists, he's a kickboxer, but he doesn't meet notability requirements. Onel5969 TT me 15:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens ( talk) 22:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Blonde of Saint-Tropez

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

This is simply an advert for a locally-available beer. Links are to the tourism board and the company that produces the beer. Prof. Mc ( talk) 15:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 16:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 16:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • delete Article's made by a single purpose account, probably self promotion. CerealKillerYum ( talk) 19:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete: a couple of local news stories here and here, a bit of a novelty given that it is unusual for a municipality to license its name to, and receive royalties from, a brand of beer...but no national news org has picked up the story. Deleted from fr.wikipedia for failing their "critères d'admissibilité". Vrac ( talk) 13:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • So far, delete, delete, weak delete. Not a whole lot of discussion, but no real dissent. Prof. Mc ( talk) 03:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete (draft & userfy if needed) as my searches found nothing good at all aside from that Hollywood Reporter link. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - some local notoriety, but not enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 15:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. While not unanimous, there are many arguments here that the references, while numerous, are insufficient to support the article. The BLP concerns tip this to delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Gordon Manche

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

NOT TABLOID. I listed this for speedy as an attack page, but that was declined by another admin. If someone were to somehow write to to be npov, it would involve removing almost all the material, so much so that there would be no indication of notability DGG ( talk ) 18:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC). reply

The article is intended to say why he is worth to have an article and to what he is notary for. If you wish to be more neutral i invite you to start adding the body of article which woulf help having some different views. It is a well known fact that media reports comtroversial news while manche s claims on his pages are not ideal as sources many times, but not always. You can request a third person to give you a review on the person. Most of what have been deleted is factual but i admit that i should be more careful what words to use even though making it look controversial will attract reaader just like media reports. So i agree to not act like media and report some positive views.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Continentaleurope ( talk • contribs)

  • Comment It has now been re-edited to remove some of the purely negative material, but, as I thought would bethe case, there's nothing left to show notability. Having a large salary (for a minister) does not make someone notable DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • His salary is controversial, and in the ref, you could add more information to article why he received such coverage about it. Purely negative material was removed and will accept it but some also removed non negative sourced material. He is notarynin the usa, europe and africa. Some can add some info about that too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Continentaleurope ( talk • contribs) 01:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. It's not just the salary--it's also the gay conversion, the lack of proper financial reporting, etc. I looked at a half a dozen articles from the Malta Times and Malta Today, and it seems to me he's as notable as many of the other people we have biographies on. I agree that tone is as yet difficult, but sometimes a person's coverage simply is mostly negative. However, that first version was way too far from neutral. It's getting better. Drmies ( talk) 19:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Drmies, I've often heard the argument that "he's as notable as many other people we have articles on", but I certainly never expected to hear it from you! DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • DGG, you are absolutely right. I guess I'm jaded. Thank you for pointing this out. But even setting that aside, he seems notable enough on his island... Drmies ( talk) 15:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per past outcomes, whereby we almost always delete attack BLPs of marginally notable people. Bearian ( talk) 17:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I have improved the article keeping in mind both neutrality and positivity. He is indeed notable in Malta being an individual with his own philosophy so,ething which would be unlikely if he was in the USA having so much people with similar philosophy. Can you check the article now Gordon Manche and give me feedback. I am no longer using words in article such as "claimed" to sound more neutral. I also added many positive approaches. I have added his own version or side of the arguments. I intend to add relations with other religions which distance themselves from but Manché is quite open to join them in constructive discussion. He showed this trend on national tv by the malta public broadcasting servicing, on famius program xarabank. He is quite diplomatic when arguing and charismatic. However there are lack of sources about this limited to youtibe videos in many occasions. Could you please give feedback? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Continentaleurope ( talk • contribs) 18:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Prune heavily -- This still has a lot of element of an attack article. The subject's views are certainly controversial, but far from unique among fundamentalist Christians. Some hold views that are anathema to certain other groups. It is fair to set those out objectively, but some of the content is sensationalist and written as a tabloid journalist might. Views expressed about him by others do not each need a separate subheading. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Bearian. The article is probably necessarily negative if we follow the sources, but the notability is marginal at best. St Anselm ( talk) 00:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Maybe keep But is he minor? I suspect that very few Wikipedians read Maltese, the article is sourced to Malta Today, but here: [30] are the search results on him from the Times of Malta and the The Malta Independent here: [31]. I'm not sure he's minor enough to just delete. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 17:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per E.M.Gregory's reference search, significant coverage in two newspapers. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 22:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX, DGG is right about this being something that should have been speedily deleted under the BLP policy, the subject is not only non-notable, but insignificant, the 200 refs remind me of one of Armbrust's favorite snooker players, of whom I had never heard before, who had 350 refs. Kraxler ( talk) 02:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep Wikipedia is to allow artcile written in a neutral point of view which matter to countries who use English/American as a daily writtena nd read language. If sources are too negative does not mean it should be deleted. If so you must delete most politicians biographies as they receice very harsh criticism. Had a person write about a priest or monk in Malta which has lots of positive review he would not be that notary to have an article. The article Gordon Manche could be checked to be very positive compared to sources used as only info which are relevant was taken. Some of the info has more citation as Manche himself encloses many information on his websites. If appearing on every journal, TV, Radio, Magazines, etc, (here [32]) in Malta consequently is not notary then nothing is notary. He is certainly notary in an island of 400k people of which people prefere wikipedia in English/American. Preceding unsigned comment added by Continentaleurope ( talk • contribs) •• User:Continentaleurope is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT
It's a clear case of Idolatry and/or Hagiography, a violation of WP:PROMO #1, which recommends: "You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions." Kraxler ( talk) 12:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep I think there are sufficient independent references to merit a short article, possibly about 1/4 the existing length, with the irrelevant and oversized photos removed. - Arjayay ( talk) 09:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: It doesn't often happen with AfDs, but the article is worse than it was when it was nominated, and comes under WP:TNT. The pictures are ridiculous, and File:(null) (3).jpg is an obvious copyvio. St Anselm ( talk) 09:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • File:(null) (3).jpg is not a copyvio in Malta as it was used mutiple times in media. [3] Just in case delete it. Preceding unsigned comment added by Continentaleurope ( talk • contribs)

References

  1. ^ http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/33768563
  2. ^ "Rovers v Shrewsbury Town". Blackburn Rovers F.C. 11 August 2015. Retrieved 11 August 2015.
  3. ^ http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20140408/local/pastors-comment-on-muscats-temporary-blindness-raises-controversy.514097
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep Good article about this person. did not know about his personal life and career. perhaps just delete the Laicity part as it is in reference to all religions, except catholic not just to evengelicals. very well explained. article seems very positive in the pastor`s view to some extent unlike media in malta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.22.190.233 ( talk) 08:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply

KEEP & improve/revise; i have no problem with the matter of "notability"; in the context of the society of the very small island nation of malta, he's notable enough. he has been in the news there enough to qualify by any reasonable standard. given, that he meets the criteria of notability, it becomes a matter of the quality of the article & sources, not deletion. (btw, when did it become a "thing" that every dd gets "relisted"? we didn't used to do that... ) Lx 121 ( talk) 10:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • KEEP Very good work and fully cited. The dude has already received enough publicity in Malta more than the president of Malta. Now even here. Perhaps expand some argument. The article uses a some quotations said by Manche without quoting from several individuals who may oppose his views. Seems to be in his favour. Well done and please expand. I wish to know more about him than we already know. Write something about his character, attitude, appearance. His life in the US was long enough to write more and even his missions abroad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.188.46.57 ( talk) 08:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep. Gordon Manché is clearly a notable person, a pastor in Malta. However, the article is waaaaaaaaay too long. I think it should be severely trimmed down. 12.180.133.18 ( talk) 08:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - as per DGG and Kraxler. I don't find the few objective opinions to keep persuasive. Nothing in the searches to show this person meets our notability criteria. Onel5969 TT me 15:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: someone might have a little meat factory going? FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 23:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • weak Delete I was going to !vote keep on this one, but there is so much BOMBARDing and CITEKILL that I'm starting to agree with StAnselm; the best thing would be to nuke it and start over. The attack/POV would be minimised and (hopefully) the page would become more reasonable. Primefac ( talk) 08:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply

@onel5969: Gordon Manché is written about in all of the major newspapers of Malta such as Malta Today, Malta Independent and Times of Malta. 12.180.133.18 ( talk) 16:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. Nomination was withdrawn, no delete votes. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 15:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Scott Mendes

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

Unsourced BLP, only local coverage. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. ( ?) A redirect to Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association would suffice. –  czar 21:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 01:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 01:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails under WP:NSPORT, W1i2k3i45 ( talk) 17:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC) per WP:SOCKSTRIKE Kraxler ( talk) 15:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I do not know what "Fails under" means. Is that even English? It looks like an uneducated comment to me. WP:NSPORT, 18:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.117.91.174 ( talk)
  • Keep Scott is the 1997 PRCA World Champion. Per Wikipedia standards reposted here, he qualifies as notable.

Individuals who participate in the sport of Rodeo are presumed notable if they 1.Have participated as athletes at the highest level of professional competition such as the Calgary Stampede, Canadian Finals Rodeo, National Finals Rodeo, or National Finals Rodeo (Australia); 2.Have been inducted into a national or international rodeo hall of fame such as the ProRodeo Hall of Fame, Canadian Pro Rodeo Hall of Fame, National Cowboy & Western Heritage Museum Rodeo Hall of Fame, or National Cowgirl Museum and Hall of Fame. 3.College rodeo athletes in NIRA competition will follow NCOLLATH and younger rodeo competitors will follow NHSPHSATH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.117.91.174 ( talk) 23:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Struck your bolded !vote above. Comments are unlimited, but you can only !vote once in an AfD –  czar 03:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Please link your sources. Also are you the same account as the IP above? You posted in very quick succession. Also I haven't heard back on your talk page whether you have an affiliation with the subject. And what part of WP:NRODEO are you saying Mendes meets? –  czar 03:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep You can't !vote twice. CZAR you may think you are an Wikipedia expert, but you are not very nice person. I am a newbie to Wikipedia and trying to help the community by creating a few articles of interest. Every time I post something, you question it and put it down as not being notable. That is your opinion, and a misguided one. I met Scott once and thought it would be a great gesture to help him get posted on Wikipedia, and give me something to contribute. Call me a fan, or whatever you want, he is Wikipedia material. However, I see now that Wikipedia is not about history, or even an encyclopedia. It is just a chalk board with people like yourself that think they are being helpful to the world of history, but in reality are just censors. Scott won the world championship in 1997. That means he beat everyone in the world and is the best bull rider for 1997. The citations on his page show this as proof of his accomplishments. He was the best in his sport. Wikipedia supports this as notable. Yet you are questioning the postings and Wikipedia itself and nitpicking on semantics that he is not worthy of a page and only a redirect. The person that posted the previous comments anonymously, is saying the same thing, yet you became judge and jury and said that their posting was also not valid and crossed that out. Who made you the Wikipedia decision maker? I question your motives and wonder if you are a legitimate editor for Wikipedia, or just an angry person that wants to censor history and public opinion. Of course, you can censor this personal note I write here, and feel you are legitimizing your stance, but in the end you are doing a disservice to Wikipedia and what it stands for, an encyclopedia of knowledge. Knowledge lives on despite attempts to censor it. WP:NSPORT, 2:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberstarboy ( talk • contribs)
I'm sorry if my notices on your talk page have come across as impolite. They are standard messages and can seem cold via the Internet. As you say, you are new, and I am fairly well versed in Wikipedia policy. My only interactions with your articles have been restoring public notice tags that the IP address (which you say is not you) removed and nominating this article for a lack of secondary sources. I don't believe I've said anything to you that could be construed as impolite. I wasn't involved in nominating Rodeo Judge (video game) or ChristGames.org for deletion—that was other editors. I'd be happy to explain any of the above in more detail if you wish. Take care –  czar 07:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It looks like the NFR is part of the PRCA. So by the logic that a winner at PRCA has to win at the NFR it meets WP:NRODEO-- Savonneux ( talk) 02:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Withdraw. Huh—didn't make that connection. It's weird because he doesn't even show up as first in the original results, but is later reported as winning the bull riding average? I don't know how that math works—is it a full year average? Anyway, the magazine confirms that he competed at NFR, and that is indeed enough for NRODEO. I am, however, not seeing the significant coverage that is supposed to come from being a NFR contestant... –  czar 03:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to StudentVoice. If StudentVoice gets deleted then the redirect will just get a G8 tag, which doesn't hurt anything. ( non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 ( T) 14:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Luke_Shore

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

I don't think this article meets WP:BIO: the subject doesn't seem sufficiently notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, beyond involvement in low-profile charities. From the string of edits from a single account, I'd also suggest possible self-promotion WP:PROMOTION. Wikiminaj123 ( talk) 21:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 01:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 01:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to StudentVoice, though I do not think that is a particularly significant organisation either. This membership of a European organisation would seem to be taking part in the equivalent international organisation. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I would have said redirect as per Peterkingiron, but after researching the StudentVoice, I actually nominated that article for AfD, since I could only find a single independent source about that organization. I can't see redirecting to an article that may get deleted. Onel5969 TT me 17:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Sega#Company_reshuffling_and_digital_market_focus_.282013.E2.80.93present.29. –  czar 00:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Hardlight

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

Article without sources about a subsidiary of Sega. Looks like most sources are related, so fails WP:GNG The Banner  talk 22:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 01:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 01:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 01:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Sega rather than delete as my searches such as this found results but nothing to suggest independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Hmm. I created a userspace draft for this topic last year that I kind of abandoned. At the time, I think my understanding was that the topic was notable, but the majority of sources I am finding right now are primarily about games that this studio makes, as opposed to the studio itself. I would, for now, support either merging or redirecting to Sega, but in the meantime, I'm going to keep digging. Mz7 ( talk) 20:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Sega — Reluctantly, I admit that in reliable sources, information about the studio itself has been largely ignored in favor of reporting on the games it produces. Almost every mention of Hardlight is done in passing in an article about one of their games. With that being said, I believe the best course of option is to redirect to Sega for now. Hopefully more information will be published later to warrant an article. Mz7 ( talk) 15:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect. The one source in the article from Develop is the only one I can find that goes into depth on the studio itself (as opposed to being tied to the popular Sonic Dash mobile game). Searchable term and what's in that Develop article can be expanded to a paragraph or two about the studio without a problem. -- MASEM ( t) 23:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens ( talk) 22:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Sludge Crawler

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

Appears to fail notability guidelines, no sources, reliable or otherwise. hewhoam areismyself 23:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 01:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Game released Nov. 24, 2006. Approximately 900 have played it according to the download page at cnet.com, which is the only reliable source I could find, except that this source only reproduces the publishers description. All other appearances online appear to be blogs and wikis. Article is unreferenced. Prhartcom ( talk) 13:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. ( ?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ ping}} me. –  czar 23:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete- software article of unclear notability, lacking independent RS coverage. As a download site, cnet is not independent. A redirect to publisher Manifesto Games would also be reasonable. Dialectric ( talk) 04:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens ( talk) 22:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Callum James Greens

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

This article contains no reliable sources that establish notability: it consists of blog links and a press release, which is rather problematic, to say the least. If sources exist (and, ideally, could actually be used in the article, but we have a bad habit of saying "Sources exist!" and then leaving the articles as problematic as they were before) then that's one thing, but as it stands,... Adam Cuerden ( talk) 13:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete As I stated in the original PROD notice: Comprehensive failure to pass any of the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people). All sources are either by the subject himself or referenced to publicity blurbs in a blog plus a dead link to a press release. I can find nothing better. Virtually all of the claims are unverified and unverifiable. Voceditenore ( talk) 18:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, I concur with what's been said previously. Blatantly fails general notability. Can we salt this title? FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 23:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No evidence of meeting notability guidelines. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 23:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- I do not normally comment on music-related issues, but he does not seem to have achieved a great deal; i.e. NN. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens ( talk) 22:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply

List of mugshot websites

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

Nothing but a list of external links; almost speedyable via A3. OhNoitsJamie Talk 12:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Weak Keep: On the one hand this does fit the bill for Stand Alone List as a categorization of Mug shot publishing industry. On the other hand I feel that this isn't the level of effort that needs to be there to justify it's inclusion. I can see how having this data listed (especially who is the "owener") helps reveal some of the disturbing trends. Hasteur ( talk) 12:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment I don't think "being helpful" is a criteria for inclusion. That's an argument often invoked to justify spamming external link sections. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment Great way to run off a well established user Hasteur ( talk) 14:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
That looked like a reasonable and polite response, to me. We're here to have a discussion, which may involve editors critiquing other editors' arguments. Pburka ( talk) 15:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 12:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 12:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment List of websites is a mainspace page, not a policy page. You'll find that most (nearly all) of those lists are to notable websites (i.e., websites that are notable enough to have a Wikipedia article), and contain links to the Wikipedia article rather than external links. The page as it stands now clearly violates several policies as other editors have mentioned ([[|Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directoryWP:NOTDIRECTORY]], WP:LINKFARM). OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per NOTDIRECTORY and WP:ADVERT, along with LINKFARM; most of them just seem to be owned by the same company under different names per locality Nate • ( chatter) 08:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is pure advertisement, and for a particularly repugnant industry. Seriously, a comparison table listing which services they provide? valereee ( talk) 13:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens ( talk) 22:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Desolidify

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

Dictionary definition, no room for this article to expand beyond a dictionary definition. WP:NAD. shoy ( reactions) 12:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Dic def. On a lighter note: also cringe worthy.-- Savonneux ( talk) 13:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. In addition to being a dictionary definiton and, as noted, cringe-worthy, the content here is factually incorrect; the term was in use well before 2011. The earliest use I could find in a minute or so of searching was a 1940 patent application, although I admittedly wasn't trying very hard. If feeling particularly generous, a redirect to melting is probably excusable on the grounds that redirects are cheap. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 14:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - agree with nom and above editors. Definitely a dictionary definition. Onel5969 TT me 15:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Per CSD#G5 ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 02:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Bluegrass-companies

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

No independent reliable sources are cited in the article that are specific to the company, they are either to a press release or business directory, or unrelated to the company at all. Google search of the usual places showed no coverage in reliable sources either. shoy ( reactions) 12:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Rebutal [1] [2] also how is this source 'unrelated' http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/21144239 ? ^search for bluegrass in the above GOVERNMENT document, I assure you they are very much in there. Tell me which is unrelated as I assure you they all are, and if you don't believe the company is real you can look at their tax records or call them, I did. Futhermore tell me how the above patent is unrelated, and we really want to analyse explain to me how other pages on wikipedia have NO SOURCES yet you choose to belittle this page for example: /info/en/?search=Wire_saw And Hey lets add this to the list "5.5 Relevant DOE D&D Activities There have been several DOE funded D&D activities that are relevant to the dismantling of large radioactive equipment. A TFA report entitled "Melter Glass Removal and Dismantlement" from ORNL8 summarizes these various activities. These activities include the D&D Chicago-Pile No. 5 (CP-5) research reactor, the size reduction of the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) Vacuum Vessel, and D&D work at the INEEL South Tank Farm in January 2000. Technologies used included the Dual Arm Work Platform (DAWP) at CP-5 (DAWP developed by ORNL), diamond wire cutting by Bluegrass Concrete Cutting, Inc. at the TFTR, and the Modified Brokk Demolition Machine (at the STF)." -US Department of energy http://sti.srs.gov/fulltext/tr2001248/tr2001248.html

Watch this too if you still have doubts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zxG7Y38uDg -- Woofles23 ( talk) 13:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ "U.S. Patent #20130000451". Fresh Patents. Retrieved 30 June 2015.
  2. ^ "DEMONSTRATING DIAMOND WIRE CUTTING OF THE TFTR". Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Ayesha Mumtaz

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

Declined speedy. I see no real claim of notability: being somebody's daughter is WP:NOTINHERITED: nor is being a food inspector earthshakingly extraordinary. OK, there are a couple of news article. WP:NOTNEWS. TheLongTone ( talk) 12:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • delete. She is doing her job, no more, no less. Nothing in the article indicates wiki worthiness. Postcard Cathy ( talk) 13:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep She is currently being discussed everywhere in Pakistan because there is no such example of act prior to her. People are lot more interested to know about her. Currently 'News' are the only source to verify her notability. I am going to add more news references to keep this page on Wikipedia. Mian Zeshan Farooqi 10:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeshanfarooqi ( talk • contribs)
Flash in the pan stuff that she would not be attracting were it not for her parentage. TheLongTone ( talk) 12:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - she appears to be doing work that has gotten people's attention, and not just for one incident. Bearian ( talk) 13:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 01:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep In addition to Northamerica's sources, she has also been covered in Urdu sources: [39], [40], [41]. Her title is translated as 'fearless lady'. It should be noted that food inspectors, as the nom puts it, vary by significance in different countries. Elspamo4 ( talk) 20:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted as G11 by Jimfbleak (NAC) SwisterTwister talk 15:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Storm United

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

Does not appear to be a notable video game. Most sources online are promotional or are game information websites, but there appears to be a lack of reliable sources significantly covering it. The best I could find is an article regarding a possible update, but that doesn't really count as coverage. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 11:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 11:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted by User:Jimfbleak. North America 1000 18:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Aarkshan virodhi party

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

Delete: Article about a political party which is yet to have a winning contestant in Lok Sabha or Vidhan Sabha elections. Nomination as per article TalkPage discussion. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 10:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: Sorry! I couldn't find any policy/guideline anywhere that a political party has to have a winning candidate to be notable enough for Wikipedia. Can you cite it here please? Also, on the talk page you wrongly mentioned that the party has not contested any election. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 10:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Dharmadhyaksha, agreed. All I managed to find was this that too is a failed discussion. Even if clear guidelines are not there, I am sure you understand the intent behind the discussion. Lets see what comes out of the AfD discussion. Thanks for your time. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 11:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 11:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens ( talk) 22:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Chaiseri

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

Company does not seem to have sufficient third-party coverage sovereign° sentinel (contribs) 10:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 18:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 18:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 18:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep company seems notable enough as a producer of military vehicles it is just a crap stub article that just needs more work and better references. I have added one from Janes. MilborneOne ( talk) 20:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There are enough army enthusiasts to make military-related pages very difficult to delete, but the only source provided from "Africa Aerospace & Defense 2014 "is a blurb that reads like a press release. I will take the unpopular position of promoting consistent standards. CorporateM ( Talk) 01:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per CorporateM Pokerkiller ( talk) 21:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Northern Rivers#Education. Seriously ? .... ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Upper Coopers Creek Public School

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

Article is about a primary school with only 15 students. Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. No third-party sources. Editor is new to Wikipedia. sovereign° sentinel (contribs) 10:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame ( talk) 02:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens ( talk) 22:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Tahlia Raji

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

A person competed in modeling reality competition didn't win and doesn't meet the standards of WP:BIO. ApprenticeFan work 10:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete article of a person with no other notability beyond having participated in a reality competition where she did not win. The article in question is a play-by-play of events that took place on said show. Trafalk09 ( talk) 20:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I speedy deleted these about six weeks ago, and still see no credible claim of significance or any other measure of notability that would permit them to meet the WP:BIO criteria. TomStar81 ( Talk) 04:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - nothing to show notability on any of the searches. Onel5969 TT me 16:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens ( talk) 22:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Franchesca Lagua

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

Contestant who didn't win modeling competition and doesn't meet WP:BIO requirements. ApprenticeFan work 10:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete article of a person with no other notability beyond having participated in a reality competition where she did not win. The article in question is a play-by-play of events that took place on said show. Trafalk09 ( talk) 20:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was wrong venue, but still speedied. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

List of bern centers in the United States

List of bern centers in the United States (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's a reddit meme to link to List of burn centers in the United States, apparently they also want such a link to link to Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign. DickHuuhn ( talk) 09:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • This is actually the wrong place for this - redirects need to be discussed at WP:RfD. However that said, this is a recently created and completely implausible redirect (meaning it can be speedied) since I can't see where this phrase is really all that actively used enough to where it'd be worth keeping or going through a full RfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. WP:SK#1 ( non-admin closure) —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Fast casual restaurant

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

Proposal: Delete Fast casual restaurant, merge whatever bare bones content is worth keeping into Fast food restaurant.

Fast casual is a marketing term created by executives of fast food restaurants to suggest that their brands are superior to McDonald's, Burger King et al.

The boundary is blurry at best and there really shouldn't be a distinction.

Even Wikipedia recognizes this, which is why the footer template "Fast food and fast casual restaurant chains in the United States" doesn't separate the two.

The average Chipotle burrito costs about $8. Chipotle is the Subway of Americanized Mexican food. Subway sandwiches are in the same price range as Chipotle, yet it's regarded as regular "fast food" instead of "fast casual"?

McDonald's recently launched a "build your own burger" feature in New York and other locations. You select your own ingredients (which are fresher than mass-produced McD's sandwiches) and the burger costs $8-10, same price range as Chipotle and Subway.

If food is prepared and served in minutes, it's fast food. Referring to specific chains as fast casual simply because corporate management calls them so for the sake of hyping their brand is advertising, not NPOV, and has no place in Wikipedia.

Aaaaaabbbbb111 ( talk) 00:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Someone left this comment years ago on the Fast casual restaurant Talk page: 

Chipotle

I know this is everybody's favorite, and they may use better ingredients, but by current definitions, it's not really a fast-casual restaurant. It doesn't have limited table service — it has no table service. The meats are no less pre-prepared than a McDonald's patty, and a limited number of items are assembled quickly in assembly line fashion. Also, it will most certainly be included in NY's formal definition for its phased $15 minimum wage for fast food restaurants, and Chipotle even references themselves as a fast-food restaurant on their own website: We know that no fast food is perfect, including our own. Just thought I'd throw that out there before changing anything — I've been looking at these pages in light of the NY decision.

This comment was left by Crusho not by me.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This does not appear to have been transcluded in the 10 August 2015 AfD log, so I have transcluded it to the 2015 August 12 log. As such, the discussion should be considered as having started upon the time of this note. North America 1000 06:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep The nomination is a mess and is proposing merger. See The Economist for evidence of notability. Andrew D. ( talk) 06:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep #1. There's really no question that the concept is notable, even if not all sources agree on the precise definitions. The Economist, Washington Post, Forbes, and the New York Times have all featured articles that discuss the topic at length, some even noting the unclear boundaries of the term. There is prodigious coverage of the topic in industry magazines, as might be expected. In contrast, the wall-of-text nomination offers no policy-based cause for deletion. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 14:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Now meets MUSICBIO thus no reason to delete ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Adam Martin (singer)

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

Doesn't pass WP:MUSICBIO. Ricky81682 ( talk) 05:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment This looks promotional, and I would question whether Adam31088, Auspeto and Jane Music have any conflict of interest here. I created this originally as a redirect to The Voice (Australia season 1) and that is a clear alternative to deletion. Boleyn ( talk) 06:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Well there used to be Draft:Adam Martin (musician) but it was then moved to articlespace. The redirect is fine to reinstate. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 06:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
It's a problem I come across as someone who creates many redirects, someone can turn them into an article and it misses the usual checks. Not sure what can be done about that. Best wishes, Boleyn ( talk) 06:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but needs better refs if he really did have singles at #26 and #66, that's prima facie notability ... but the article is not very good at present - David Gerard ( talk) 11:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep satisfies WP:MUSICBIO#1, 2, 4. Some refs now supplied. shaidar cuebiyar ( talk) 20:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Charting artist meets WP:MUSBIO. Doctorhawkes ( talk) 01:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens ( talk) 22:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Restomod Air

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

No sources, failing WP:CORP. Conifer ( talk) 05:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 18:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 18:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 18:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:CORP MarnetteD| Talk 21:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now as my searches found nothing good at all for this newly formed company and I live near this area and can say this is a not an outstandingly notable company. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - nothing in searches to show notability. Onel5969 TT me 16:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Building Blocks International

The result was Speedy Delete ( G11) by User:Jimfbleak. ( non-admin closure) ApprenticeFan work 10:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

No sources, fails the notability guidelines for companies. Conifer ( talk) 05:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Delete per reasoning below and WP:CSD#G11. Guy ( Help!) 07:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

FreeWorldGroup

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

No independent sources except for a blog interview, not notable. Conifer ( talk) 05:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

I am a moderator on the website and am good friends with the owner. A lot of the information came directly from him. --05:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello. First, we discourage writing about subjects where you have a conflict of interest, like being friends with the owner. Second, we can't included information on Wikipedia based on original research, which includes personal knowledge that isn't published in a reliable source. Conifer ( talk) 05:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Well, wouldn't sources on this count as reliable? They're from trusted, truthful websites (Alexa in particular only shows stats, LinkedIn is meant to give information on Valzano), and it's not like they're lies. As someone who's been active on the site for 5 years, maybe more, I can say that there are no inaccuracies within this. Do you want traffic details specifically for Bowman 2 (one game which boasts millions of plays?)? Something more concrete? Could you give us the very definition of what you want so that we may give you just that? I'm not sure what you consider "original research". You seem to bend that to "something I do not approve of" and I find it very strange. Foopzheart ( talk) 05:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Well sorry mate but anyone who isn't friends with him isn't going to have enough information to write a Wikipedia article that the mods here consider "valid". In fact, I'm not sure Chuck Norris doing a Jedi mind trick is.

Does a LinkedIn profile clearly of the owner aswell as reliable references written by the owner really not count? What do you want from me when that's all there is? When those are what he gave me as references when I asked for them? -- Flobberz ( talk) 05:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

LinkedIn profiles are textbook WP:SELFPUB sources which cannot be used to establish notability or anything at all really except establishing uncontroversial facts. This is because they are not independent of the subject and exist to promote it, this is contrary to Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. Winner 42 Talk to me! 22:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I browsed around some and could find nothing reliable that discusses this outfit. Note: of course LinkedIn is not reliable--at best it's a directory. The Alexa score isn't particularly high. The definition of what's reliable is in WP:RS, and what the writer needs to realize is that an encyclopedia is built on secondary sources, not primary sources. (This stuff is handled in Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources, and of course in most freshman comp classes.) Drmies ( talk) 02:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
An article was posted just three days ago containing information relating to the site. Give us some time and more will be found. Unfortunately others have been removed, including a detailed list of website analytics and statistics from Mochiland, however I'll do my best to collect some more. Since this discussion was started (might I add just hours after I wrote the article, like seriously) at least 15 more references have been added, so it's obvious that I (and others) are trying.
You misunderstand that I don't realise what you want from me. I'm well aware that secondary sources are much preferred to primary ones, but frankly they're just the first I have. Just because they're not preferred doesn't mean they can't still be used amongst secondary ones, which I am attempting to find.
If I'm blunt, there's no reason to really care, to be honest. We have no reason to lie - in fact we have just about every reason to tell the truth. There's no need for it to be so bureaucratic. Flobberz ( talk) 08:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The article has only been started - give the writer(s) more time to find sources of information. The current alexa rating is not relevant, as most site activity was in the past.-- JSwho ( talk) 02:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep We have taken action based on what you said. We've added almost 30 references including books, websites, blogs, journals, news articles, website statistics, reviews, videos and even research papers. We've put a lot of work into it and by now I'd say it's pretty reliable and professional. There are many worse on Wikipedia so if this gets deleted, so should many others. Thank you. -- Flobberz ( talk) 03:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 23:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Subject does not have significant (or any) coverage in reliable sources, so it does not come anywhere near passing WP:GNG. This is enough for deletion on its own, but the very likely UDPE makes me confident that this article doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Winner 42 Talk to me! 22:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per Winner42, Conifer, Drmies, and comments made by Flobberz. "You have to be friends with the owner in order to write the article" is a pretty large red flag, because that's almost exactly the opposite of GNG. The sources do not meet RS, as all the mentions are trivial; for example, a "scholarly article" listed the website as a "software cited" for Flash, and L'espresso, supposedly published by Indiana University, is in Italian(?), the URL is from Google.hk(?), and after all that mentions the URL exactly once in the entire six issues in the "pack." That mention, by the way, is in conjunction with reviews about games hosted on the site. That is effectively what the majority of the sources show, which is "the name was mentioned, once"), or are cruft links to different parts of the website. Those are by definition trivial. No RS = no GNG = no article. MSJapan ( talk) 23:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Purely promotional article about non-notable game developer, no evidence of notability. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep due to the consensus that sufficient sourcing does exist for an article on this subject. Other issues would be handled via the editorial process. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy

Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Textbook WP:POVFORK from Planned Parenthood, where there's an ongoing, very lively, debate over how this controversy should be covered, and how much weight various claims/sources should be given. This needs to be kept within the planned parenthood article, where it can be properly contextualized, and where correct weight can be applied. Fyddlestix ( talk) 22:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix ( talk) 22:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix ( talk) 22:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • User:Cwobeel, what evidence do you have for a POV issue? We cover all sides of the issue, and any POV issues can be dealt with in the normal manner. This is actually what policy requires. It's a WP:SPINOFF sub-article. See the block of policy quoted below. This is the ideal solution to problems in both the PP and CMP articles. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 06:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply
It is obvious is it not? You have an article on Center for Medical Progress, about which the only notable thing is the PP videos. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply
User:Cwobeel, I understand the dilemma. User:StAnselm mentions the issue below at 04:17, 10 August 2015, and I responded there at 06:13, 10 August 2015. Take a look and add your view there. Regardless of the outcome on this rather different issue, I don't think it has anything to do with a keep or delete of this proper WP:SPINOFF sub-article, so please strike that delete (because this isn't a POVFORK). -- BullRangifer ( talk) 03:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • User:CFCF, what evidence do you have for a POV issue? We cover all sides of the issue, and any POV issues can be dealt with in the normal manner. This is actually what policy requires. It's a WP:SPINOFF sub-article. See the block of policy quoted below. This is the ideal solution to problems in both the PP and CMP articles. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 06:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Possibly? Bound to be contentious though, I figured a discussion can't hurt. Fyddlestix ( talk) 22:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I've been surprised that there wasn't an article on the subject - it certainly seems independently notable. So the idea of a fork by itself is fine, and the POVishness can be improved by editing. St Anselm ( talk) 22:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC) reply
read WP:POVFORK, we already have an article on Planned Parenthood. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Do you mean the bit that says "Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" can itself be based on a POV judgement, it may be best not to refer to the fork as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing"? St Anselm ( talk) 22:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC) reply
No. The bit about The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. (my highlight) - Cwobeel (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Yes, and I would say that this should be the article. St Anselm ( talk) 22:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC) reply
( edit conflict)This was my primary rationale for nominating (although I think there are other good arguments that could be made for deletion too). PP faces one of these controversies every few years, and the charges/allegations that are made by PP opponents often prove to have been misleading in the long term. Mainstream media sources already suggest that the same thing is happening in this case. Spinning off a separate article, where the allegations are discussed in detail, but the longer history of PP and the opposition it has faced is not, gives undue weight to the claims that critics of the organization are making in this controversy. Fyddlestix ( talk) 22:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. To the extent that this will appear notable in a year's time, it will be entirely through the impact on Planned Parenthood as an organization. That impact should be (and is) covered at the article on the organization, with appropriate weight and context. -- JBL ( talk) 23:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or merge. I see no reason why a separate article is necessary or useful. -- Ashenai ( talk) 01:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete article adds nothing over Center for Medical Progress article and simply removes content about links to Operation Rescue that users personally don't like (though it is accepted as due on CMP page). User who created has a history of edit warring on the Theodore Roosevelt page. -- Callinus ( talk) 01:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Wikipedia keeps articles which meet WP:N. This event which this article describes passes WP:GNG because the event was covered multiple times from various perspectives by reliable sources. Passing GNG passes N. This article is a fork of Planned Parenthood, which is a good thing. Content merges happen when good content can be put back into a parent article, but that should not happen in this case. This event has been covered to an extent that merging this to that article would be WP:UNDUE, and the response to good content which is WP:UNDUE is to fork it into its own article. I would like to see someone who wants this deleted to comment on WP:N - does this not meet Wikipedia's basic inclusion criteria? In what way does it not? Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This article is an obvious WP:POVFORK. Eclipsoid ( talk) 04:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Eclipsoid, what evidence do you have for a POV issue? We cover all sides of the issue, and any POV issues can be dealt with in the normal manner. This is actually what policy requires. It's a WP:SPINOFF sub-article. See the block of policy quoted below. This is the ideal solution to problems in both the PP and CMP articles. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 06:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Article adds a lot of notable and current event information which, as past, similar articles have shown us, do end up pertaining to WP as a whole. This article also meets WP:NOTE by a very large margin and I would also like to ask for editors to show how it doesn't. This and other similarly politically motivated articles generate a lot of tension between editors. This should caution us to take the extra steps to NOT make this a Speedy Delete nor just ask to Delete on the sake of future lack of notability. If you go to Planned Parenthood's Talk Page and scan the currently available sources just there, I can easily count over 30 proper sources commenting on this issue with the vast majority of these posting follow up articles as the days go by. This should not be so easily dismissed. 200.42.237.185 ( talk) 06:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC) — 200.42.237.185 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
What you are actually arguing for here is a merge. The problem--what actually harms Wikipedia in a case like this--is that editors have scattered coverage across no less than four different articles. Editors not finding traction for their edits at one article simply move their preferred version over to the next, or as we see in this case, simply start a fresh article where they can craft their own truth without so much interference from those other pesky editors. It's a textbook POVFORK and in the long run it will actually create more strife among editors rather than mitigate it. Eclipsoid ( talk) 06:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the comment Eclipsoid but I still do not see an answer to Blue Raberry's valid point. " This event has been covered to an extent that merging this to that article would be WP:UNDUE, and the response to good content which is WP:UNDUE is to fork it into its own article." 200.42.237.185 ( talk) 06:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep. As the proper spinoff sub-article is being developed, it becomes more apparent that it will be able to cover what could be seen as excessive coverage in both the PP and CMP articles. Both articles will benefit from the SPINOFF because we will be able to go into more detail there, and leave shorter summaries in each main article. This is how we're supposed to deal with these types of issues, so please help develop it. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 16:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Essentially the same thing was done for ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy. 173.228.118.114 ( talk) 18:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Getting tagged as a spa probably wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't conspicuously from editor who exclusively edits controversial political subjects as well and happens to have expressed a differing opinion in the AfD. Screw this noise. 173.228.118.114 ( talk) 19:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I notice the sections on the controversy in both Center for Medical Progress (political organization) and Planned Parenthood are both very long. For the PP article, at least, I would have thought it was approaching undue weight. So a question for those who !vote delete: is that what you anticipate the long-term situation to be? Essentially the same content duplicated in two articles? Doesn't it make sense to combine them in an article on the specific topic? Regardless of POV issues, is there room for a legitimate WP:SPINOFF situation here? St Anselm ( talk) 22:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • User:StAnselm is correct. There must not be any POV violation in a main article or a spinout subarticle, so the opposition argument (that's it's a POV FORK) is moot. If POV is violated, then fix it. The two articles deal with the same subject, and those sections are getting way too long, so policy says to create a spinoff sub-article:
The length in both main articles is now a problem, so "it is more appropriate to break that section out as a separate sub-article...." I think it's time to do it, and this article serves that purpose. The burden of proof that it's a POV fork is on opposers, and if that is a problem, then fix it, don't delete it. We really do need this sub-article, and it's a great added bonus that it solves a problem for two articles. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 04:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The length of either article is not a problem, see WP:SPLIT. In addition, the Center for Medical Progress article's only notability are these videos. We would not have an article on that organization otherwise. Henceforth, it is an obvious POV fork. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Agree with others that it's an obvious POV fork. Rockypedia ( talk) 22:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • No, it's not obvious, and if NPOV is violated, then fix it. We need this article. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 04:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Rockypedia, what evidence do you have for a POV issue? We cover all sides of the issue, and any POV issues can be dealt with in the normal manner. This is actually what policy requires. It's a WP:SPINOFF sub-article. See the block of policy quoted below. This is the ideal solution to problems in both the PP and CMP articles. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 06:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Blue Rasberry and BullRangifer.-- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 04:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – I agree with BullRangifer. It seems like a proper use of summary style to me. I mean, Planned Parenthood is involved in a lot of controversies. Having a rule that every single Planned Parenthood controversy can only be discussed in the main article would leave us with an unmanageably long article. If some of the controversies have spinoff articles but not this one, it gives this controversy undue weight in the main article. That's why we had summary style, I thought. If people's real objection is that this is a nontroversy rather than a controversy, then the nomination should be about that instead. Summary style is good. AgnosticAphid talk 15:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for reasons better articulated by User:BullRangifer and User:Agnosticaphid. -- BrianCUA ( talk) 15:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is an acceptable content fork with enough detail that shoehorning it into the Planned Parenthood article would be WP:UNDUE as the coverage there is already borderline excessive. This topic should still be covered briefly at Planned Parenthood. Care should be taken to ensure that both articles conform with the rules on neutrality and weight. gobonobo + c 00:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:POVFORK. This isn't a new topic, and it isn't even a new issue within the Planned Parenthood article. It is merely more of the same politically motivated maneuvering which has been part of the PP story for the last couple of decades. Certainly the material presented here is referenced, but that doesn't make it a separate topic. Instead, it is part of the PP story. It should be dealt with at the PP article. Binksternet ( talk) 21:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Binksternet, it would only be a POVFORK if it presented only one side of the story, and it doesn't do that. It's a proper spinoff sub-article, as required by policy (you need to read my comments above). Quoting policy:
  • "Essentially, it is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject on different pages, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter. This can happen when a particular controversial incident gets a lot of attention from editors representing different points of view, expanding until every item of evidence is included and referenced. This kind of detailed examination of a single incident in a general article will usually be considered to give Undue Weight to the incident so it is more appropriate to break that section out as a separate sub-article and just have a summary in the main article." (emphasis added)
There are examples of prominent sub-articles above. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 21:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Then tell me why the article under discussion has only 2015 material in it. The selection of just 2015 material was a mistake, a POV mistake. Binksternet ( talk) 02:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply
This particular controversy arose in 2015 and pertains to the CMP videos. The 2010 controversy may well warrant its own article, but that is not what we're talking about here. St Anselm ( talk) 03:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Perfect! Then the material ought to be MERGED into the CMP article. In any case, there should not both be a CMP article and a 2015 undercover video article. Binksternet ( talk) 03:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Well, if CMP is only notable for their role in this controversy, then it should not have its own article, per WP:INHERITORG. St Anselm ( talk) 04:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply
User:StAnselm has a point. The solution would be to merge relevant CMP content here and delete the CMP article. This is all they are known for. They are self-admittedly a bogus organization created only for this purpose, so the hollows out any claim to independent notability. But, let's get this article accepted first and then deal with this idea in a later RfC. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 06:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete. This article is an obvious WP:POVFORK. In addition, it gives undue credence to claims that have been debunked by nearly every major media outlet, and no wrongdoing on the part of Planned Parenthood has been found. User:naha8 22:33, 9 August 2015 — naha8 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (Blocked editor)
Actually, as the article indicates, there was wrongdoing found in Florida. St Anselm ( talk) 23:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Whether there was or wasn't "wrongdoing" is really not relevant to whether full coverage of this controversy belongs in the main PP article or in its own article. It isn't even really relevant to the question of whether the controversy is notable, which isn't the topic of discussion here. Regardless, have you read Wikipedia:Summary style? I can't see how creating a special rule that says "this is exempt from our summary style rules because it's kinda controversial" is consistent with the purpose of the summary style guideline. And if you read Wikipedia:Content forking carefully, that guideline also doesn't create such a rule, as BullRangifer noted above. Indeed, Wikipedia:Content forking encourages the proper use of Wikipedia:Summary style. AgnosticAphid talk 00:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply
User:Agnosticaphid is correct. Proper NPOV coverage would include any wrongdoing and deal with coverage of all sides of the issue. We don't write hagiographies or sales brochures here. Since that's not an issue here, we just need to decide if we're going to follow our WP:SPINOFF policy or not. Doing so would solve the big problems with overly long coverage in TWO articles. It's not often we can "kill two birds with one stone" here. This is the best solution, and effort should be placed into this article, not into the sections in those articles. When this one is fairly complete, we can reduce the size of those sections and leave a SUMMARY STYLE section, with main links to this article. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 06:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Substantial topic of intense media coverage and an ongoing situation. WP needs a dedicated POR for this event as it's unfolding is much larger than can be infused into the original PPH article. DasReichenz ( talk) 01:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Consider splitting the other undercover videos material here. As the main article documents, such to-dos flare up every two years or so and never go anywhere. There's no reason to have a separate article on this one, but I'm likewise sensitive to the argument that it'd overwhelm the main article, so, split all of it out instead of just 2015. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 02:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Are there anymore than the "Live Action undercover videos" section? That one is very short and thus can remain as is. If it actually needs further development, then we could combine it here and make this all into a larger WP:SPINOFF sub-article (with a different title), but, to avoid complicating things, I think that decision should wait. Let's settle this one first. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 06:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I also don't see a reason to have a separate article on the "Center for Medical Progress". The two are obviously redundant. I think the POV issues other users identify can be fixed through normal editing - but they also should be fixed through normal editing, and a keep result must not be taken as an endorsement of any presentation of the events that depends on unreliable sources or misrepresents reliable ones. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 02:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, any POV issues can be dealt with in the normal manner. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 06:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. WeldNeck ( talk) 02:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Clear real-life reaction and aftermath '''tAD''' ( talk) 08:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Not a content fork. An attempt to delegitimize the organization that has become issue #1 for Republicans in the 2016 elections, for now at least. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 18:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Requesting additional comments after possible canvassing. Nakon 04:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as legitimate spinoff for a very notable series of events. Elizium23 ( talk) 05:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • User:Nakon, can you cite the cases of canvasing for us? Thanks. -- BrianCUA ( talk) 12:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Yes, I was wondering that, too. St Anselm ( talk) 12:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Me three. This seems a rather odd situation. I don't recall it before. So far the !voting seemed to be going normally, but if there has been extensive canvassing, then maybe certain !votes should be stricken or the editors warned, but relisting....? -- BullRangifer ( talk) 15:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep more than warrants its own article, POV issues can be worked through. Juno ( talk) 15:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and Improve. Notable event, and I like many others looked to Wikipedia for a NPOV description after hearing a reference to it on the news. Page does noeed work, though. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notable event, not a content fork. It's more of an article split. Marauder40 ( talk) 19:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete That it is a POV fork is quite obvious from the discussion on the Planned Parenthood talk page, where editors did not reach consensus on the wording of information about this event on that page. That said, this is very new news, and a single news event, and as such WP:NOTNEWS applies. Should this event have a lasting legacy it might warrant an article, but as it is it is just another of many events in the ongoing battle around the abortion issue. The two articles, PP and Center_for_Medical_Progress, which both include information about this event, suffice. LaMona ( talk) 21:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Blue Rasberry and BullRangifer put it better than I ever could. Essentially this is an event which passes the GNG independent of Planned Parenthood, comparable the ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy. LM2000 ( talk) 22:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • SIGH (closer: please see bolded step#5 for bangvote-counting-purposes). Recommended steps, in order: #1, per WP:UNDUE, cut down PP#CMP from 20 sentences + 4 subheaders + 1 main-art-link, to 5 sentences + 1 subheader + 1 main-art-link. The summary must say PP charges money for the tissues; briefly explain that PP officials see the charges as nonprof-cost-recovery, and critics see the charges as selling-body-parts; summarize, no quotations. Make sure the summary includes the 99% partisan 53-46 senate vote ("a vote on Aug 3rd along party lines to 100% defund PP -- they are already prohibited from using fed funds on abortions specifically -- was seven Senators short of overcoming a filibuster"), then mention the issue is now part of the POTUS race, again w/ no quotations. Also mention NH and LA and other state-level impacts, one sentence. Step #2, per WP:UNDUE, expand PP#LA from 4 sentences + 1 subheader + 0 main-art-links, to 6 sentences + 1 subheader + 1 main-art-link. The PP summarization currently contains the NPOV-fail summary-sentence "additionally one center was placed on probation[122]" of the 3 long sentences at LA'10, when LA'10 says that center was on probation and then indef-blocked, err, 'shut down temporarily Jan 2014 to present'. NPOV prose: "One PP facility in Alabama was on probation, and since Jan 2014 has been temporarily shut down." Also, again NPOV-fail, the PP article says "some employees and volunteers were fired for not following procedure" when the spinoff says that a manager was fired after the support-of-prostitution 2011 sting, [42] that one TX employee was fired after the AZ/HI/TX sex-selection-abortion 2012 sting (plus T.Franks R-AZ got HR1797 passed in the House using said videos), and that nobody was fired after the first-do-no-harm 2013 sting. So, step #2 is fixing all those problems, plus probably more that are not currently visible in mainspace; POV omission is worse than visible POV-skew, because harder to detect&fix. Step #3, properly organize the CMP subsections, parallel to the way LA is organized: Background, Operations, Activities/2010/2011/2012/2013, SeeAlso/Refs/EL. Specifically, CMP should have Background (about Daleiden/Newman/Rhomberg), Operations (about Operation Rescue tie-in), and Undercover videos controversy Activities/2015 about the tissue-selling 2015 sting. Step#4, properly redirect Biomax Procurement Services to the newly-created Center_for_Medical_Progress#2015 subsection. Step#5, merge-then-redirect 100% of the content, no deletions, of PPUVC into newly-created-subsection CMP'15. Step#6, in the Planned_Parenthood#Center_for_Medical_Progress_undercover_videos subsection, change from "Main article: Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy" to the more-NPOV-compliant "Main article: Center_for_Medical_Progress#2015" link (once that #2015 subsection is created and populated with the PPUVC contents). Step#7, concentrate on maintaining NPOV in the spinoff articles about the attack-organizations, and make sure they are articles about attack-organizations, and not attack-articles (hint: don't put CONTROVERSY OMG LOOK LOOK into the article-title). Simultaneously, concentrate on maintaining NPOV in the primary article about the controversial (no citation needed for obvious reasons) federally-funded group, and make sure the summary-prose does not whitewash the legitimate impacts achieved the attack-groups ("one center was placed on probation" is a whitewash per above... "some employees and volunteers were fired for not following procedure" is a whitewash per above... "fetal organs and tissue are never sold" is a whitewash per above). I have attempted to make my suggestions as simple as possible, but no simpler. My thanks to the folks who work hard on these controversial articles, trying to stick to reflecting what the sources actually say, and hewing firmly to the pillars at all times. I will NOT under any conceivable circumstances be responding to this AfD thread again; ping my talkpage if you need something specific from me, please. p.s. To respond in advance to the boilerplate-where-is-your-evidence-this-look-look-omg-controversy-article-does-not-pass-GNG, all I can say is just because PPUVC has enough newspaper stories to nominally satisfy WP:42, does NOT mean we therefore legally must have a dedicated article; please review WP:5, in particular, the non-negotiable pillar about neutrality, and the one about "improving the encyclopedia" qua encyclopedia. And to the people bangvoting pure flat delete, when 100% of wiki-policy clearly and overwhelmingly indicates this is a merge-and-improve or plausibly even a keep-and-improve scenario, check your premises. 75.108.94.227 ( talk) 12:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, but be very careful and vigilant not to give unwarranted credence to the content of the videos, especially the edited versions. HandsomeMrToad ( talk) 22:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Very notable and controversial. This should have a article. AlbinoFerret 15:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per BullRangifer and others. This event has been covered with enough depth and breadth that a neutral article can be (and seems to have been) written on it. It is very much a sub-topic of Planned Parenthood so WP:SPINOUT applies, not WP:POVFORK. FourViolas ( talk) 12:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Whether for good or ill, the hullabaloo surrounding this topic has received such extensive coverage in reliable sources that it clearly has independent notability. DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 03:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Plenty of coverage, clearly notable. Any NPOV problems should be fixed. MissPiggysEx ( talk) 21:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to main article. It seems to me that the debate here should not be about notability; the subject is clearly notable. The point is that when the topic of an article is a sub-topic of a broader topic which has its own article, as is the case here, do we require a subsidiary article? The guidelines that seem most relevant are WP:CFORK and WP:TOOBIG. Provided the subsidiary article is neutrally written, CFORK does not prohibit it, but neither does it require it. On the other hand, WP:TOOBIG says that for articles with <40kb of prose, "Length alone does not justify division." Therefore, I would vote to merge this with the parent article. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 18:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens ( talk) 22:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Eric Trautmann

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

Fails WP:BIO Fiddle Faddle 07:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • comment I can find some interviews ( [43], [44]) in comics-related zines, and can also find a fair amount of his work, but I must admit that I'm not sure what would be considered RS for folks in this genre, and would love some advice on that if anyone has it. LaMona ( talk) 17:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 ( talk) 03:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 23:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The subject clearly produces a lot of material that is published in various formats, but all the references to it that I can find, are either promotional in nature, or do not discuss him or his work in any detailed manner. Noting that apparently there is also another Eric Trautmann, an actor and also an author... but not of comic books... and that the article under discussion here is not about that other Eric Trautmann. Arthur goes shopping ( talk) 10:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom and above editors, as they've said it all already. Onel5969 TT me 16:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ceradon ( talk • edits) 03:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Andy Mackie

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

Unsourced promotional (auto?)biography of a race car engineer. Previously had one source, a Renault press release. If this person meets WP:GNG, then a full rewrite of the article would be necessary. I can't easily find any sources pertaining to this person; there appear to be multiple people by this name. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 07:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 ( talk) 03:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. Article created, maintained, and deletion contested by a SPA (who called it "my wiki page" and then signed "andy mackie") and its sock, whose undelete rationale "used to verify previous achievements, I dont understand" sounds most likely from the subject of the article. Prhartcom ( talk) 14:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and salt -- Obvious ADVERT/AutoBio of NN auto-racing mechanic. He is not operating at the top level of the sport, probably at a level where many of the participants (drivers) are not professional. He could of course set up his own webpage, and I would not object to temporary userifying, so that the subject can set up his own website elsewhere and copy the content there, but that is as far as I would go. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. This article has no place here. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete - clearly doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Onel5969 TT me 16:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. ( non-admin closure) Mz7 ( talk) 01:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Sunline Inc.

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

Unsourced. Fails WP:GNG. sovereign° sentinel (contribs) 16:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: Sunline was renamed to Sunmark at some point, the brands have changed hands a bunch of times. Because all of this predates the web it isn't easy to find sources but here are a few: [45] [46] [47]. It would take some research to straighten out the corporate actions history, but given that this company is responsible for some candies that are still household names it deserves a keep. Vrac ( talk) 02:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 00:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 ( talk) 03:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ceradon ( talk • edits) 03:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Head over Heels (Cornerstone album)

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

NN album by NN band released on NN label. Sources are all taken from band's website and do not support notability. Songs from a film that won an award do not establish notability for a band or album unless the award is for the soundtrack. It is not. MSJapan ( talk) 03:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Notice "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc.“, as clearly is at point 10. at WP:band. Again, MSJapan: in case you are not able to read, tell me, I'll read it aloud for you. User:Morrissey1976 ( talk) 11:55, 12 August 2015 (CET+1)
Strong oppose MSJapan tagged the page Cornerstone for proposed deletion over and over again, altough reliable third party sources were delivered and refered to. MSJapan wants to remove the page plus related pages, because he personally hates the band and construct and invite reasons to do so, which has nothing to do with the reality or the facts. Simply ignores third party sources. I’ve already contacted Wikipedia in reagrds of this, block of IP requested because of vandalism. Talking ‘but the band page in accordance to WP: band:
“1.Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.”
Fullfilled. I have refered to two example sources ( Classic Rock (magazine) and Powerplay Magazine), I don’t want to start refering to hundreds of reviews and interviews regarding the band. [1]
“2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart”.
Fullfilled. It doesn’t matter, if for one week or hundred weeks. [2]
“4. Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.”
Fullfilled. Countless medias reported about the band’s USA-Tour and their several UK-Tours. [3]. I refered to one example source ( Dayton Daily News). Again, I don’t start uploading and refer to hundreds of sources, because one guy hates the band
“10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. “
Fullfilled. Delivered two songs to the soundtrack “ Little Alien”, which won multiple awards. Check out the films WP or the films Website.
“11.Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.”
Fullfilled. Rotation on national Austrian Radios Hitradio Ö3 [4] and “ Radio Wien [5] Example playlists delivered and refered, too.
Regarding the other topics: Requested movements of Cornerstone dab page and Cornerstone happened because of logical point of views and an easier search modus for the several meanings of the term Cornerstone. Probably user is also an SPA for the "Cornerstone dab page” and “Cornerstone” (haven’t checked out yet). The band played the mainstages at all of the Festivals that was mentioned, as cleary is viewable at the refered Flyers and several videos in the Internet. Btw., MSJapan, “Fireworks” and “Powerplay” are “two of the biggest rock’zines in the UK, not “the biggest”. Learn to read, or in case you can’t, tell me, so I’ll read it aloud for you. Let me add, that there should be no place on WP for personal grief and personal tastes. User:Morrissey1976 ( talk) 09:38, 12 August 2015 (CET+1) User talk:Morrissey1976 is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT.
  • Delete as WP:NOTPROMOTION. All references are from the band's website, and I couldn't help noticing that they're in .pdf format, requiring a download and harder to verify than webpages. This is COI editing at its most blatant. If Cornerstone (Austrian band) survives AfD (I don't think it should, but stuff happens), redirect. Mini apolis 23:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. "british "Fireworks" and "Powerplay"-Magazine, two of the biggest UK-rock'zines". Yeah, right. Push that line any further and that is when tags like {{disputed}} and {{hoax}} get added to articles. References also lack relevance to demonstrating notability of the band or the album. Not only promotional but bordering on the misleading. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 20:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Rich Wilson. "Bon Roxette, anyone?" (PDF). Classic Rock, Issue 05/2011, UK. Retrieved 2015-08-11.
  2. ^ http://austriancharts.at/showitem.asp?interpret=Cornerstone&titel=Smalltown+Boy&cat=s
  3. ^ Donald Trasher. "Austrian band teams up with Dayton record label". Dayton Daily News, US. Retrieved 2015-08-11.
  4. ^ "Eberhard Forcher's Friday Night" (PDF). Hitradio Ö3.
  5. ^ "Heimat bist Du großer Töne" (PDF). Radio Wien, Austria. Retrieved 2015-08-11.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom and above editors voting for deletion. Searches revealed nothing to back up claims of notability. Onel5969 TT me 16:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Cornerstone (band), non-charting album, no significant coverage, stand-alone article not warranted under WP:NALBUM Kraxler ( talk) 00:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ceradon ( talk • edits) 03:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Somewhere in America (album)

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

NN album by NN band on NN label. Sources are nothing but local radio playlists. MSJapan ( talk) 03:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Notice MSJapan "Hitradio Ö3 is one of the nationwide radio stations of Austria's public broadcaster ORF" "Radio Wien is the regional radio for Vienna, and is part of the Österreich 2 group" as cleary is seeable on the pages of the radio stations. Learn to read, or in case you can't, let me know, so I will read it aloud for you. User:Morrissey1976 ( talk) 11:51, 12 August 2015 (CET+1)
Strong oppose MSJapan tagged the page Cornerstone for proposed deletion over and over again, altough reliable third party sources were delivered and refered to. MSJapan wants to remove the page plus related pages, because he personally hates the band and construct and invite reasons to do so, which has nothing to do with the reality or the facts. Simply ignores third party sources. I’ve already contacted Wikipedia in reagrds of this, block of IP requested because of vandalism. Talking ‘but the band page in accordance to WP: band:
“1.Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.”
Fullfilled. I have refered to two example sources ( Classic Rock (magazine) and Powerplay Magazine), I don’t want to start refering to hundreds of reviews and interviews regarding the band. [1]
“2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart”.
Fullfilled. It doesn’t matter, if for one week or hundred weeks. [2]
“4. Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.”
Fullfilled. Countless medias reported about the band’s USA-Tour and their several UK-Tours. [3]. I refered to one example source ( Dayton Daily News). Again, I don’t start uploading and refer to hundreds of sources, because one guy hates the band
“10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. “
Fullfilled. Delivered two songs to the soundtrack “ Little Alien”, which won multiple awards. Check out the films WP or the films Website.
“11.Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.”
Fullfilled. Rotation on national Austrian Radios Hitradio Ö3 [4] and “ Radio Wien [5] Example playlists delivered and refered, too.
Regarding the other topics: Requested movements of Cornerstone dab page and Cornerstone happened because of logical point of views and an easier search modus for the several meanings of the term Cornerstone. Probably user is also an SPA for the "Cornerstone dab page” and “Cornerstone” (haven’t checked out yet). The band played the mainstages at all of the Festivals that was mentioned, as cleary is viewable at the refered Flyers and several videos in the Internet. Btw., MSJapan, “Fireworks” and “Powerplay” are “two of the biggest rock’zines in the UK, not “the biggest”. Learn to read, or in case you can’t, tell me, so I’ll read it aloud for you. Let me add, that there should be no place on WP for personal grief and personal tastes. User:Morrissey1976 ( talk) 09:38, 12 August 2015 (CET+1) User:Morrissey1976 is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT.

References

  1. ^ Rich Wilson. "Bon Roxette, anyone?" (PDF). Classic Rock, Issue 05/2011, UK. Retrieved 2015-08-11.
  2. ^ http://austriancharts.at/showitem.asp?interpret=Cornerstone&titel=Smalltown+Boy&cat=s
  3. ^ Donald Trasher. "Austrian band teams up with Dayton record label". Dayton Daily News, US. Retrieved 2015-08-11.
  4. ^ "Eberhard Forcher's Friday Night" (PDF). Hitradio Ö3.
  5. ^ "Heimat bist Du großer Töne" (PDF). Radio Wien, Austria. Retrieved 2015-08-11.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 18:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply


  • Reply: Band and album notability criteria are distinct. The soundtrack and single aren't on and aren't relevant to this album. The chart position of the single is not relevant to this album. A playlist from a show, or a half-hour snippet doesn't indicate "rotation". Rotation means it's replayed, and there's no indication of that. The Dayton article is a few questions in a local paper, and it only mentions "Head Over Heels" briefly, which isn't this album. Therefore, none of your sources establish notability for this album. MSJapan ( talk) 20:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Reply: I'm not willing to upload dozens of playlists here, nor dozens of reviews. The Dayton News was an example. Would it be a big issue for you, btw. to STOP spin the WP guidelines and my sources and references into your strange view? I CLEARLY pointed out, why you want to remove the pages from WP, and it is pointless, I could upload here hundred of sources and references, you'd spin it, and we'll discuss here for weeks with no result. May I suggest, that you simply leave the pages I've created, alone, unless you do a constructive contribution? Thank you. Morrissey1976 ( talk) 01:00, 13 August 2015 (CET+1)
You are not meant to be uploading stuff for our benefit. If you need to upload stuff to be able to reference an article then that just proves that it is failing both WP:N and WP:V. I also dislike the idea that you want what you write to be left alone. That is not how Wikipedia works. This is an encyclopaedia not free web hosting for PR material. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 20:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. While I am sure that the guys at BBC Radio Lincolnshire would be flattered to be presented as the very cornerstone* of the UK-wide BBC, looked on with envy by the pitiful denizens of the national stations, it is clear that this is here primarily to flatter the band itself. All 4 "references" go straight to the band's own website. That in itself is fatal. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 20:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
* - Sorry. Could not resist it. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 20:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, but add references If the author can prove the claims made in the articles (Meaning both the Cornerstone page and this one), I see no reason why they shouldn't meet both WP:BAND and WP:NALBUMS. That said, if reliable sources, fully cited, cannot be given to support facts with evidence (also meaning besides ones from cornerstone.com) before AfD debate ends, the article cannot be kept. -- Flobberz ( talk) 15:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I thought the comment claiming an album could satisfy BAND was odd, so I looked at the user's contribs. I hate to WP:BITE, but Flobberz has less than 50 edits, has been on WP for three days, has only worked on one article (which has been sent to AfD), and already has several notability guideline discussion items on his talk page related to said article. His last comment on such is "Wikipedia simply has unrealistic standards." So I don't think he yet has the understanding necessary to be participating in AfDs. MSJapan ( talk) 20:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Reply to MSJapan The problem, that we have here is, that you have a strong COI regarding the article Cornerstone and with this whole AFD, that you have started. I already wondered, why someone put such strong efforts into the deletion process of a - everyone excuse me this term here now - f***g band. But this make sense: reading all your other articles, except one, all of them are about Freemasonry, the term 'Cornerstone' has a strong meaning there (Which I wasn't aware of, when I wrote the article). I suppose, you are an expert and/or a part of this communion, and furthermore you want to remove the article either out of your own interest, or someone told you to do so. Strong COI. Btw., I found it quite interesting, how you judge about other people, as clearly seeable in your reply to Flobberz, whose suggestion was really calm and reasonable. May is suggest, that you'll do that within the organisations, you are part of outside of WP, not here? Thank you. Morrissey1976 ( talk) 11:50, 16 August 2015 (CET+1)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Reply to MSJapan
Don't be afraid to do it, MSJapan, all Wikipedians do apparently!
I edited my initial comment because I guess you somehow couldn't tell what I meant. -- Flobberz ( talk) 20:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Istari Lasterfahrer

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

The topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources ( ?) enough to build a full article. No hits in major music RS. No suitable merge targets. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources are found. –  czar 02:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Clearly fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Only source I found is this (a 1300w political article) and it mentions him just once in passing. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as my searches found nothing good and convincing apart from a few passing mentions. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. Rossi is ultimately only known for the marathon, which is not even remotely enough to warrant having an article. There are also WP:BLP concerns since there is at least one person (as evidenced by the AfD talk page comment, which is now removed) that sees this article as a way to make WP:POINTY statements about their opinion as to whether or not Rossi was a cheater. Wikipedia is not a place to raise awareness or further a viewpoint, and I can't see where this would be anything other than detrimental to both Rossi and Wikipedia. Whether he is or isn't something is not the point. What is the point is whether or not he is notable per Wikipedia's guidelines, which he is not. I'm salting this to prevent further recreation as well. I am also deleting the sandbox version, as I cannot see where this person would pass notability guidelines any time soon, also for BLP concerns. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Michael Mike Rossi

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

Not a notable person. There's this chatter about the letter, which is nothing but a momentary flash on the screen of the viewer, and the matter of the marathon qualification. If we count each of them as half an event, which is already giving it a lot of credit, then we still have a case of WP:BLP1E. Delete this. Drmies ( talk) 02:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete. Even if the subject is notable for more than one event, which is not evident based on the sources provided, the article should be speedily deleted as an attack page, as it appears to have been written primarily to disparage its subject and there is no good version to revert back to. -- Hirolovesswords ( talk) 03:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Full disclose, I just declined the G10 speedy on this. I also removed the most negative paragraphs and the questionable sourcing that went with them, and tried to make it a bit more neutral pending this discussion. One can still view the history to see earlier versions. I agree with the nom that this is a classic BIO1E case, and should be deleted. I also am concerned that absent close watching, the article might return to its earlier negative state. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 04:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Would anyone be upset if I closed this early? The coverage for this is fairly minimal and I can't see this closing as anything other than a delete. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • @ Xymmax: I'm kind of worried about this going back to an attack page as well, given that what is out there about this guy is somewhat negative in tone. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Like Lankiveil, I think it's best just to let the process play out. Usually saves time in the long run. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 22:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, classic WP:ONEEVENT case. I have some sympathy for the idea of just closing early to stop it turning back into an attack page, but if you do that I worry about the whole case then getting tied up in rules lawyering, DRV, etc etc. Better I think to keep an eye on it here for the next few days and let it close by the book, I think. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 11:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC). reply
  • Keep More notable than BLP1E, but the anonymous allegations of cheating part is simply violative of WP:BLP. The "see also" stuff is intrinsically violative of WP:BLP as well. Collect ( talk) 13:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC) BTW, protection would make sense here - this BLP was quite unbalanced for sure and I can understand the deletion proponents. Collect ( talk) 13:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment User:262jelle/sandbox should be placed at MfD as being a violation of WP:BLP in userspace, IMO. Collect ( talk) 14:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Tokyogirl79, please go for it, and delete that sandbox as well. Collect, while I respect their opinion, has reservations as well, and their point about the sandbox is well taken. If the person is notable (but I note that Collect presented no real argument...), this can be rewritten--the proper way. Drmies ( talk) 16:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I am the original creator of the article. I would like to point out that the subject is notable for being a famous DJ, for his viral letter and for his marathon cheating. In my opinion he is a notable person. Also I don't think this is an attack page, I have tried to write it as neutral as possible. /info/en/?search=Rosie_Ruiz isn't an attack page either. The allegations of cheating aren't anonymous at all, important people from the running community have offered the subject $100,000 to repeat his qualifying time. I am willing to add more references, if this is necessary. I understand there is a problem with my sandbox too, I have changed it. I should also add that this page has been vandalized several times by an anonymous user, probably the subject himself. I am also wondering why he has disappeared from this page: /info/en/?search=Marathon_course-cutting -262jelle
    In case you did not read WP:BLP - we only use what reliable secondary sources state, and your personal opinion that the person is a cheater is, alas, not in that category as a source. AFAICT, the article was remiss in not noting that the trip included visits to historical sites etc. which appears to be of not insignificant educational value. Collect ( talk) 19:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    I used this article as one of the sources. Is it not reliable? As far as I am aware, the main purpose of the trip was running the Boston marathon.-- 262jelle ( talk) 19:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    I fear you did not read the bits about Rossi stating that the children saw historic sites in Boston then. "LetsRun.com is primarily "message boards" and is very likely not to meet the stringent requirements of WP:RS such as a reputation for fact-checking etc. It is run by the Johnson brothers, and the article they cite states "The site eschews such traditional media conventions as aspiring to completely unbiased reporting, grappling with space limitations, and being forced to adopt a cautious storytelling approach for fear of insulting or alienating readers. " [48]. Collect ( talk) 19:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    The fact-checking was very thorough. Otherwise they wouldn't risk $100,000. A lot of statistical research has been done. He was the only participant who had no photographs on course. Check the article and this spreadsheet. -- 262jelle ( talk) 20:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Then I suggest you ask at WP:RS/N if you think that makes this a "reliable source" for a contentious claim in a BLP. I fear you might suffer a disappointment on that noticeboard, though. Collect ( talk) 21:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    I would like to ask you to read the LetsRun article and decide if it is reliable or not. There is very strong statistical evidence. I see no difference with the Rosie Ruiz Wikipedia article. And there are a lot of other sources who have reported this story: Phillymag, The Morning Call, NBC, Runner's World etc.-- 262jelle ( talk) 22:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 262jelle ( talk • contribs) 22:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)> reply
  • You mean like "Questions about his performance in last year's Lehigh Valley Health Network Via Marathon have led the directors of the race to institute new verification protocols, even though they have essentially absolved the Montgomery County man of allegations that he cheated so he could qualify for the prestigious Boston Marathon."? I fear you misweigh the meaning of "reliable source" here. Wikipedia is not here to "prove someone was a cheat" - we are here to stick to conservatively written biographies of notable persons. Rossi is not notable for his race times (in fact, the "race" had nothing to do with the school letter, AFAICT) - he is notable for his DJ history and the "student unexcused absence" letter and rejoinder. Collect ( talk) 22:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    My original article mentioned that he wasn't disqualified. However, it is not true that he was "absolved" (see the statement of the race director). Can we agree that he is notable for "alleged" cheating? I am willing to rewrite the article in this sense, like the Kip Litton reference in this article.-- 262jelle ( talk) 23:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • This is precisely why WP:BLP1E is the proper way to analyze this subject. Runner's World is certainly a reliable source in this context. NBC Philadelphia should be as well. And the case can be made that the Daily Mail fact checks as well. All of these sources focus on the race controversy in the context of the letter. This is the event that make the subject notable, and it clearly is of the "flash in the pan" variety. The article warrants deletion on this ground. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 22:41, 12 August 2015
    Why should this article be deleted, and not the Rosie Ruiz one? She is notable only for one event, while Mike Rossi is notable for other things and the evidence against him is even stronger. -- 262jelle ( talk) 23:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Sheez, the old "what about this article from the ten million articles that we have". It's not relevant, but thank you, I'll drop everything and have a look. Drmies ( talk) 01:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    It may well be another case of 1E, but have you seen the coverage for it? New York Times, Spokesman Review, Toledo Blade, all the Boston papers. Drmies ( talk) 01:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Thanks for looking at it. It thought it was relevant because it was also about an (alleged) marathon cheater and the evidence in this case is much stronger. This case got quite some coverage as well, albeit not from the NYT. I don't agree this is a "flash in the pan", because this story is receiving media attention for many months, since his viral letter. -- 262jelle ( talk) 01:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Letsrun.com Was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Letsrun.com as not being notable. Collect ( talk) 22:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Clear case of BLP1E. Fyddlestix ( talk) 01:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • The "marathon cheat" trash is BLP1E, and that allegation should not be placed on Wikipedia in any article. The rest, alas, is sufficiently notable per Wikipedia guidelines as his dance program was notable, and our notability requirements for entertainers of that type are not insurmountable. Collect ( talk) 13:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)! reply
      • Trash? Please, watch this video. I also don't understand why you removed his reference in the Marathon course-cutting article. His case is clearly an example of "Publicized incidents of disputed marathon results".-- 262jelle ( talk) 14:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete with prejudice (and salt) ("keep" is struck out due to the apparent nature of the intent of this article). The intent of the writer to make this abut an "evil person" is sufficiently clear, that the fact the person does meet notability requirements is outweighed by the seeming misuse of Wikipedia to promote what an editor knows to be the truth here. Sorry. Collect ( talk) 14:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • That wasn't my intent. I don't even know the subject, he might be a great person. I edited the article, in a very neutral way. I only stated facts and used the word "alleged". I also used other sources than LetsRun. Let me know what you think about it.-- 262jelle ( talk) 15:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
      • "Intents" and "results" may vary. Collect ( talk) 19:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
        • The article includes positive things as well. I have written about his work, his famous letter, his nomination as Dad of the Year etc. I don't think the result is the portrayal of an "evil person", but a balanced, neutral, unbiased biography of a interesting notable person who is alleged to have committed one error in his life. -- 262jelle ( talk) 20:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: fails notability for all the myriad reasons stated by previous editors. It appears only the article creator supports keeping the article. Quis separabit? 21:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Someone supported keeping the article on the "Talk" page, but that comment was removed...-- 262jelle ( talk) 22:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Mz7 ( talk) 01:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Jean Pierre Sioussat

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

Significance of person is not shown Garchy ( talk) 15:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I think he meets WP:GNG. The current Columbia Historical Society source, coupled with content easily visible through a Google search, indicates that he has received significant coverage in highly reliable sources. North of Eden ( talk) 01:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • keep; reliable sources, of historical interest. -- phoebe / ( talk to me) 01:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 10:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ceradon ( talk • edits) 03:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply

D-Trash Records

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

The topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources ( ?) enough to build a full article. No hits in major music RS. Apparently nothing new since last AfD. No suitable merge targets. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources are found. –  czar 02:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete without prejudice as it stands - needs, like, anything - David Gerard ( talk) 00:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as my searches found nothing good at all. SwisterTwister talk 07:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Userfy to User:Formerwageslave/Phallus Über Alles. ceradon ( talk • edits) 03:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Phallus Über Alles

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

The topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources ( ?) enough to build a full article. No hits in major music RS. No suitable merge targets. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources are found. –  czar 02:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Thanks for reaching out, I've added around a dozen additional citations re: press mentions & reviews of the band and fleshed out the article with more details re: release information and live/festival appearances. - Formerwageslave ( talk) 17:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC) User:Formerwageslave is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT. reply
Thanks! However it looks like your additions are of listings and event notices rather than significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. Ikonen would probably come the close to being a secondary source, but the mag shows no sign of reliability (editorial control, professional quality, etc.) –  czar 19:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens ( talk) 22:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Pyranoscope

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

The term "Pyranoscope" has no citations in any original sources that I could find. These devices are sometimes known as "Flame Effects", which is how the [ | National Fire Protection Association] refers to them. The user who originally created this article has very few edits, this could be a form of self promotion. Cxbrx ( talk) 01:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: might be some obscure term used in filmmaking or something, but I can't find any reliable sources about this. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as a neologism, any usable content can be merged to pyrotechnics. shoy ( reactions) 19:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unfortunately as my searches found nothing good at all so I suppose this got burned. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was userfied and deleted (non-admin close). shoy ( reactions) 13:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Technology that observe the natural world

Technology that observe the natural world (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Likely is a duplicate of existing content, though cannot identify which, and therefore cannot use A10. May be a combination of information already present in multiple separate articles. Early in the page's history, the creator completely changed the article's topic. Examine history for further details. MopSeeker Fox Three! 01:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - A bizarre amalgamation of sensor and list of sensors. "Technology that observe the natural world" sounds like a definition of a sensor... -- MacAddct1984 ( talk &#149; contribs) 01:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy G2 based on the first line: "This is for a school project will be taken down next Thursday or someone can expand on it and refine it thank you." -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 02:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I moved the article to draft space to avoid deleting the kid's homework, so what remains is a redirect that should be deleted. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 02:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens ( talk) 23:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply

I'm The One (song)

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

This song fails both general and song-specific notability requirements and does not deserve a standalone article. There is not even sufficient information for a merge to the article of the album which this song appears. The article does not need to exist. I simple redirect would have sufficed but it was challenged but the article's author, who has become a bit defensive over his "creations" with many others being deleted as well (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dealer (Stevie Nicks song)). Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 01:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy delete Same reason as I and half a dozen editors have given at multiple other AfD's of articles created by Visnvoisnvo, fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. Please someone just take them to ANI and get their article creation privileges revoked. Azealia911 talk 01:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Unfortunately this is another article about song that fails to meet WP:NSONGS. RichardOSmith ( talk) 10:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep is very noteable, released as single. Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion. So Azealia911 you are wrong - Visnvoisnvo
Visnvoisnvo You !voted keep yet understand the song fails notability? What even...I !voted speedy deletion not only because the article fails the stated guidelines, but also its creator, you. We've been in this position half a dozen times, and the outcome is always the same, you create an article, someone redirects it for failing notability guidelines, you reinstate it crying about giving it a chance, it's nominated for deletion, the outcome is redirect/delete, and the process starts all over again. How many more times will it take for you to stop creating articles that fail WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS? Please at least read the guidelines before your next creation to stop wasting everyone elses time. Azealia911 talk 12:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Azealia911 these comments are a personal attack and are not helpful. RichardOSmith ( talk) 12:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
RichardOSmith How on earth is this a personal attack?! Please do tell. Azealia911 talk 12:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
I replied on your talk page because that conversation does not belong here. RichardOSmith ( talk) 12:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Please explain how it is "very noteable". Per WP:NSONGS, "that a single is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article." --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 15:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

No, I'm quoting the page you tagged. It says you can't tag a speedy delete on this. You are giving a personal attack on me and I am willing to report you if you don't stop. Saying "You reinstate it by crying" and "Stop wasting people's time". If I thought it would be deleted and my work that takes me time to do would be deleted then I wouldn't make articles. What's the point of wikipedia? To make it true! I want things to be cleared up and written with honesty on here. I'm not lying. You're not the only one here. You don't need to tell me this. Someone that will talk to me with respect can speak to me. I'm done listening to you. - Visnvoisnvo 8:43, 12 August 2015

Visnvoisnvo Jesus, Mary, and all the saints. Report me if you're so offended that I accused you of wasting peoples time, I have no idea where I could have thought that up (Here's four hints 1, 2, 3, 4) Yes, of course Wikipedia goals are to create as much content as possible, but the content needs to be notable, and the bulk of article creations by you have been proved to not be. You've been requested time and time again to read WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS concerning you article creations, and from the looks of things, you either haven't, or have and don't take notice of them. Oh give over, I've never not treated you with respect, I wrote you a nice message on your talk page, trying to start a conversation to stop you getting so frustrated and lashing out yourself. And what happened? You ignored it. Azealia911 talk 12:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Yet another non-notable song, and this is never going to become an article of any substance. This song is obscure even among Fleetwood Mac fans. I have to agree with Azealia that there's some considerable evidence, over a fairly lengthy period now, that Visnvoisnvo either hasn't read the notability guidelines or is content to disregard them. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 17:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect I didn't even know this song existed until I read the article (Bretonbanquet is right). It's nice that Visnvoisnvo is creating many Fleetwood Mac articles (many are acceptable), but some just seem pointless. This is one of those articles that falls under the latter category. Dobbyelf62 ( talk) 23:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Other than the discography references, there are no reliable secondary sources that reference the historical significance of this song. I checked both news and books and was unable to find resources to expand on this article. As it stands, I would say it does not meet WP:NSONGS and should redirect. Inomyabcs ( talk) 05:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. No need for redirect, as the article was visited about once daily for the past 90 days, on average. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. T. Canens ( talk) 22:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Malacca Folks Art Gallery

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

fails WP:ORG. could not find any significant in depth coverage. LibStar ( talk) 18:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC) reply
the address and the fact it has free entry has no bearing on notability. LibStar ( talk) 16:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC) reply
I'm just adding whatever related info I can find regarding the gallery (and any other articles that I've written). Chongkian ( talk) 16:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 00:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 01:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - lacks third-party coverage. Sources currently in the article are not reliable. sovereign° sentinel (contribs) 10:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • All of those references I've written are all from the third party coverage (not by the gallery itself), and they are the national online newspaper of Malaysia (for sure you can't get any other more reliable than this source). Chongkian ( talk) 02:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Julia Parton

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

Fails Pornbio and GNG. The notable appearances are a joke. Spartaz Humbug! 00:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. WP:SNOWCLOSE ( non-admin closure) —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 06:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Gauge (actress)

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

Fails Pornbio, scene award doesnt count. Fails gng, salon looks too insubstantial to base a pornbio on. Spartaz Humbug! 00:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1994#August. WP:SNOWCLOSE ( non-admin closure) —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 06:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Maria Checa

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

BLP1E applies and that is so undue that this looks like. A vio. InDeqauately sourced anyway. Fails gng if it lasts that ling Spartaz Humbug! 00:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1994#March. ( non-admin closure) —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 01:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Neriah Davis

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

Fails GNG. NN Spartaz Humbug! 00:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. —  Malik Shabazz  Talk/ Stalk 03:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1994#March. Not much notability other than her Playboy gig. Onel5969 TT me 04:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There is notability other than her Playboy gig; acording to the article, unlike similar models, this model has appeared in eleven films and television shows, most of which are notable (eight have their own articles), which largely took place before her appearance in Playboy. I researched and added one book reference to the article. Prhartcom ( talk) 07:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    A directory of porn actors is no more an indicator of notability than a telephone book would be, and the subject's film appearances are minor roles. So no, none of that pushes her towards meeting the project's notability threshold even an inch. Tarc ( talk) 12:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete' - Subject's film roles are gems such as 19th billing in Meatballs 4, appearances in single episodes of tv shows, "uncredited", "manager", "plan girl", and so on. Being listed in a who's who porn directory book is irrelevant. Tarc ( talk) 12:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as can't find any evidence of notability, Fails GNG. – Davey2010 Talk 13:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per onel5969. When I did much of the work four years ago in listifying the entries for minimally or non-notable playmates, I left some marginal articles in place for future decision. It's more than time for this one. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 17:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge & then Redirect to List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of_1994#March - Without having done a large amount lot of research on the subject under discussion here myself, there does not appear to be enough notability for a stand-alone article at this time. Guy1890 ( talk) 05:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens ( talk) 22:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Alice Goodwin

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

nN model. fails GNG Spartaz Humbug! 00:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. —  Malik Shabazz  Talk/ Stalk 03:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. A [ google news search] returns quite a few hits, not just in fan mags like caughtoffside, but in sources from around the world, such as El Intransigente (Argentina), The Daily Mail (UK), Fotospor (Turkey), Wirtualna Polska (Poland), Sidomi News (Indonesia), Terra Brasil (Brazil), El Comercio (Peru), and ProSport (Romania). There were quite a few more. Her article still gets almost 400 hits per day. Onel5969 TT me 04:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • is this seriously your idea of an RS? You need to explain what the specific sources are and how they meet the GNG. Don't even start me on the Daily Mail... Spartaz Humbug! 05:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Here are some. How many would you like? While I may not like the content of the articles, this is a model who’s famous for her looks and her body. Articles about her are pretty much going to be about those two things. And yes, I do think that El Intransigente is an RS, I may think the article is fluff and gratuitous, but that does not make the source unreliable. It has a long history as first a printed paper, and now as an online newspaper.
  • Gazzetta in Greece appears to be an RS.
  • Fotospor is one of the largest sports papers in Turkey.
  • While Wirtualna Polska is a portal and has aspects which don’t meet RS, WP Sports, does have editorial oversight.
  • The Sidomi News, while not a major paper, is still a news source with editorial oversight.
  • El Comercio in Peru is one of the oldest Spanish language newspapers in the world.
  • El Norte de Castilla is one of Spain’s oldest daily newspapers and is considered “one of the most reliable and influential periodical in Castile”.
  • ProSport is the second largest sports paper in Romania.
  • El Gráfico is an Argentine sports magazine, and certainly RS.
  • La Gazzetta dello Sport is an Italian sports magazine, another RS.
  • Perú21, one of the leading newspapers of Peru.
Some sources like Todaysport in Italy, e-consulta in Mexico, and Diario Deportivo Record (although this one gets thousands of hits on Spanish Wikipedia) I couldn’t ascertain whether or not it met RS standards.
These all appear to be about the same young woman. Yes, researching was tedious due to the commonality of her name, (I think I went through the first 7 pages of the news search), but there appear to be many others as well (Tribunnews.com in Indonesia as an example). Again, how many articles in RS sources are required? Onel5969 TT me 14:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Much of the "but hits on google!" argument is debunked when one finds that the hits are to other Alice Goodwins entirely, or are in the context of " Jermaine Pennant and wife Alice Goodwin...". Notability is not inherited. Tarc ( talk) 12:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Well I found this [54] but other than that most are just mentions and or of totally different people!, Fails GNG. – Davey2010 Talk 13:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- Even if her photo has been heavily syndicated, I do not think it makes her notable. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete None of the coverage comes anywhere near what we want coverage to be. As noted many of the google news hits are either to someone else, or show up mearely as captions on photos in articles about her husband. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Flimsy clickbait coverage falls below the calibre of coverage needed to satisfy GNG/BLP requirements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 10:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_August_12&oldid=1142223399"