Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_August_28 References

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 27 August	29 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 delete. A7, organization with no indication of significance, let alone notability DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Ask Youth Community

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

My searches simply found nothing to suggest third-party sources much less for notability. Notifying author Muhammad Mahdi Karim. SwisterTwister talk 23:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 23:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 23:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 23:57, 28 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. -- Kinu ^t/_c 19:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Mahanadi Bridge, Sonepur

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:NTRAN at all. Yes, the bridge is named; but it doesn't appear in any sources that describe it. The one source listed on the article comes up as a 404 not found. The Undead Never Die ( talk) 00:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 01:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 01:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Undead Never Die ( talk) 18:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Undead Never Die ( talk) 23:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete: as non-notable site. Quis separabit? 00:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete. The article doesn't include coordinates; by my read, the subject is the Highway 15 bridge at 20°51′47″N 83°54′08″E / 20.863004°N 83.902208°E / 20.863004; 83.902208. A Google search for (sonepur mahanadi bridge) turned up nothing useful apart from a 2014 article in The New Indian Express about the plight of ferrymen who'd been supplanted by the bridge; the article contained very little information about the bridge itself. A search for (subarnapar mahanadi bridge) turned up several articles about the partial collapse of a bridge under construction; but this bridge was apparently further downstream, near Banki; I found nothing useful about the Sonepur bridge. Not enough coverage to meet general notability guidelines. Ammodramus ( talk) 12:48, 30 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. Redirection can easily be discussed outside of the AFD process, and I see no consensus for outright deletion. Courcelles ( talk) 01:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Stan Owens

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

Lacks sources that indicate notability. I can't find anything about this person and his occupations and achievements, but a Family Notices page and another in The Sydney Morning Herald 1940s mentions a Stan Owens (which I can't locate in the newspaper due to tons of entries). EDIT: This news article also mentions him with the Macquarie Group (Limited view). TheGGoose ( talk) 23:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 23:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 23:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete as my searches found nothing to suggest better sourcing aside from this and this. SwisterTwister talk 23:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) is the lowest rank of that order where it is generally safe to assume notability. However, the article as it stands is just a CV which leaves the reader guessing why he should have received a CBE and why he might be notable. The most likely item on the list is as the first Executive Chairman of Hill Samuel Australia, which became Macquarie Bank two years after his death. Hill Samuel was one of the world's major investment banks during the 1970s and early 1980s, and I would fully expect that documentation (including but not only news articles) from that time would establish his notability. However, I can not find the documentation online, and an article which is nothing more than a CV is not really encyclopedic. Under the circumstances, unless someone improves the article with additional information from reliable sources, the best course of action seems to be to redirect to Macquarie Group, where he is already mentioned. PWilkinson ( talk) 17:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply
I totally agree with the above comment. CBE and Executive Chairman of Hill Samuel Australia are clear indicators of notability, but we do not seem to have the sources, so redirect to Macquarie Group.-- Bduke (Discussion) 21:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep. It wasn't terribly difficult to find some basic sources here, although they do confirm that he actually had an OBE, not a CBE. I have pruned the article right back to what I could easily source, but the stuff on Macquarie should be easily sourceable too and that, in conjunction with his role on Sydney City Council (especially in leadership roles in the Civic Reform Association), give a pretty clear indication of notability. Frickeg ( talk) 03:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep. Plenty of reliable sources on this dude: a couple of hours on Trove and a glance at the in-depth Sydney's Aldermen history project and you could comfortably write a well-sourced article on him. Nominator jumped the gun without looking into what was actually there. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 04:17, 4 September 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. Consider this a formal delete as well as a speedy. I can find nothing to substantiate that this film exists. There's supposedly a poster... yet if a poster existed then there would be coverage of this somewhere, considering that posters are usually released via marketing kits. I also have to raise an eyebrow at the "Director of Atlantic Entertainment" (presumably Atlantic Records) posting on the article's talk page claiming it's legitimate. Odds are that if the director would post, they'd post their name... and would use better grammar. Given this evidence, I'm going to issue some WP:NOTHERE blocks. If this exists at some point in time it can be recreated, but at this point in time I have to assume that this is all just a hoax. I'm also salting this page and Toward The Tower ( Film ) and directing both to this AfD for further explanation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Toward the Tower ( Film 2019 )

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

No evidence this film is real. Tagged as a blatant hoax by me, but the speedy template was removed by an IP. Fails WP:V, not to mention WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Everymorning (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - Where to start, db-advert, db-hoax, wp:notfilm. reddogsix ( talk) 23:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete for failing WP:V and WP:NF by being (at kindest) WAAAAY TOO SOON. In just supposing drummer David Anselmi (aka Anselmi Davide) has plans to produce a short film in 2019 based upon his supposed "upcoming" album "Empty Empathy", Wikipedia is not the place to promote the projects. He can brag about it on social media, but that doesn't make it so. IF facts become verifiabl in reliable sources AND the thing begins filming, the topic might be reconsidered... but for now??? Nope. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Speedy Delete as likely hoax, see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Toward the Tower ( Film 2019 ) for full statement. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 01:45, 29 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. Courcelles ( talk) 01:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Danielle Smith (martial artist)

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

Delete: Fails notability criteria in general as well as sports, She isn't notable as an athlete per parallels with the other martial artist notability guidelines, there are almost no secondary sources beyond her own websites or websites of organizations to which she belongs. Checked scholar, books and general Google search out to 5 pages looking for any robust secondary sources and couldn't find any with which to enhance the article. Nefariousski ( talk) 22:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete as my searches found nothing even in the slightest good regarding third-party and significant. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails WP:MANOTE and lacks the significant independent coverage required to meet GNG. Mdtemp ( talk) 16:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Mjroots ( talk) 06:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Marcy Borders

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

Delete: Delete: cannot derive notability as an indiscriminate VICTIM. I know -- I must be a heartless bastard. It's just not fair to others who survived and who died from the 9/11 attacks and have no other claims to notability. There may be more AFDs in this vein coming but I don't know how to piggyback them. Sorry. Quis separabit? 22:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 23:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep. No real reason offered for deletion. Toffanin ( talk) 23:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep. There are many people who have become famous for being the subject of a photograph. Enough, in fact, that there's a whole category of them. This subject has reliable coverage specifically about her and she was the subject of a play. I think she's got notability. -- Cagepanes ( talk) 01:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep The sources are secondary and reliable. Victimhood/non-victimhood have nothing to do w/ WP:N. Tapered ( talk) 04:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep person was the subject of an iconic photo as the article states if anything maybe we should create a page for the photo and merge this article into that. Redsky89 ( talk) 05:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

NOMINATION WITHDRAWN - I was focusing on 9/11 aspect but apparently the notability in this case was the iconic photograph. Live and learn. Sorry for the inconvenience. Quis separabit? 05:55, 29 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) — ☮ JAaron95 ^Talk 20:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Brian Clark (September 11 survivor)

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

Delete: cannot derive notability as an indiscriminate VICTIM. I am sorry but it doesn't seem fair to other survivors and fatalities of 9/11. I must be a heartless bastard I guess. NOTE: There are more AFDs in this vein coming but I don't know how to piggyback them. Sorry. Quis separabit? 22:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 23:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

"Just fyi, it's not usual to start an AFD by writing delete. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 09:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep. No real reason offered for deletion. Toffanin ( talk) 23:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment - Does it matter whether the nomination has content? If you had mentioned that there was no reason, and all the AfD votes/commentary were in favor of a keep, I'd say it'd be an easy keep decision, but since another user has replied with a reasonable rationale for the article meriting deletion, I don't see why we wouldn't entertain the AfD proposal. Upjav ( talk) 21:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment – As per WP:DEL and WP:AfD, a valid reason should be provided by the nominator and clearly given in the nomination itself; consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments. When a reason is not offered by a nominator, it's hard to offer valid arguments, or to engage in constructive, on-topic discussions. Just saying "doesn't seem fair to other survivors" is not a valid reason for AfD. On top of that, stating "cannot derive notability as an indiscriminate victim" is not a valid argumentation since such policy doesn't exist at all in WP:VICTIM — which is all about criminal events, hence completely unrelated to 9/11 survivors / victims. Please, provide evidences of WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:BIO violations, or let it go. And please, don't shift the nominator's burden of proof to the other editors, thanks. Toffanin ( talk) 09:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment - Not trying to fight you, Toffanin. I just figured if someone else finds enough merit in an article's deletion to contribute to the AfD discussion and vote (which I know is not a tally), they're essentially volunteering to take on the burden of proof and we could treat the nom as such. Upjav ( talk) 21:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Nom's rationale, unfortunately is Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, whereas the metric for passing WP:GNG is intensive, extensive, enduring coverage in reliable sources. Nom has also failed to perform WP:BEFORE. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep Brian Clark's experience was widely covered at the time, and it has received ongoing coverage in reliable sources since. This subject's notability is not derived from Clark's mere presence at the event, but, rather form the fact that his experience on that day has been and still is covered by major media and in books. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 12:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply

"intensive, extensive, enduring coverage in reliable sources ... his experience on that day has been and still is covered by major media and in books" -- really, like where? Quis separabit? 21:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Here: [1], Here: [2] Here: [3] Here: [4] Here: [5] and a great many more. Also in an impressive number of books, even if we only look at the mainstream books, and omit the conspiracy theory books. You do have to accompany searches on his fairly common name with keywords like "twin towers" "Al Qaeda" and "Praimnath". E.M.Gregory ( talk) 08:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Strong Keep per above as well as per sources - This is something that should never be deleted and should never have even been nominated, An article likes this needs improving not deleting period. – Davey2010^Talk 01:01, 4 September 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. Hoax Jujutacular ( talk) 01:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Doni Kochev

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

I'm unable to find sources, facts and anything else about a person named Doni Kochev from the late 19th century, despite claimed as famous. I also looked up the name in Bulgarian (Дони Кочев) and even coupling this name with the years of birth and death gives me nothing. Google Books provides a result to a book published in 2010 (initially published in 1989) called A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East by David Fromkin that could have a mention to this supposed person; they can't let me search the mention in the book in GB. In possible scenarios, if the person's mention in the book is uncited or cites Wikipedia, or the person's completely absent, then the article must likely be a hoax. TheGGoose ( talk) 21:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 21:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. It's a hoax. — Toдor Boжinov — 08:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete Contains the classic "Little is known about...". Created by an SPA, blanked once by an SP IP, otherwise virtually only bots have edited it. Not a 'blatant' hoax for me - they are supposed to stand out as such without great digging. However, I would say it's a hoax all right. Especially as Karlovo was part of the Principality of Bulgaria from 1878 (when Kochev was four), when the war of liberation ended. Which government is supposed to have executed him is unclear from the article. Peridon ( talk) 17:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete as speedily as possible as HOAX. Quis separabit? 19:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Strong Delete per everyone above. His revolutionary group has no article, and neither does the referenced newspaper. Since "little is known about the childhood of Doni", I would expect there to be SOMETHING about the groups he worked with, if I am to believe that he, individually, is significant. Google also yields nothing. Either a hoax or someone not notable enough for an entry. Upjav ( talk) 21:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete. Among other facts noted above, no references exist for "Bobi Georgiev" and his supposed revolutionary organization. Appears to be a long-lived hoax. Calamondin12 ( talk) 17:34, 30 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. WP:G5 NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply

The Life-Challengers

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

Can't tell if this is a non-notable but barely existent TV show, or simply a hoax. Problem history from this editor and their previous name, particularly over Combination lock (game show) ‎ Andy Dingley ( talk) 21:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Also List of The Life-Challengers episodes

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 21:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - as a hoax. I can find no evidence for the existence of such a show. -- Whpq ( talk) 03:47, 29 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 Snow Keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010^Talk 01:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Territorial Air Defence Force

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

This Wikipedia page does not have enough relevance to be its own article. It can easily be added to the Military of Algeria or the Algerian Air Force articles rather than being expanded. Khazar ( talk) 20:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 21:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep AfD is not cleanup. This is a full service branch, equivalent to the Soviet Air Defence Forces. It is not repeat not part of the Algerian Air Force. It is unquestionably notable - references including Library of Congress Country Study. It has many many GNG compliant references, though searches might find more at Defense aerienne du territoire. Needs expansion, not deletion. If anything, might be considered for redirecting for a while if it's not big enough, but there's no question of deletion. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep - per WP:SIGCOV, passes the General Notability Guideline as far as I can see. Anotherclown ( talk) 11:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep. What a ridiculous nomination. Of course a major branch of the armed forces is notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 16:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep: I think that this is a viable stand-alone topic, which should have the coverage required to develop it into a comprehensive article if someone is keen. I wonder if the title should include the word "Algeria" in some way, but that might be a discussion for another time and place. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 03:05, 3 September 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. Courcelles ( talk) 01:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Brazilian Abdominal Acupuncture

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

No sources in the article since it was created, no evidence of reliable source coverage, fails WP:GNG. Everymorning (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete Almost incoherent article pushing fringe medicine. Tom Reedy ( talk) 20:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete The entire article is basically a promotional article for some new alternative medicine intervention, specifically on the theatrical placebo called acupunture. I can’t help but note that that aren't sources (of any kind) to bake the claims made by Jorge Ayoubof — the creator of the new technique described in the aforementioned article — about the efficacy of this fringe practise. No scientific literature is provided by Jorge Ayoub. There are no peer-reviewed sources mentioning 'Brazilian Abdominal Acupuncture', just self-referential materials published by Jorge Ayoub. Almost all the article has been ripped-off from here, thus violating WP:COPY. This article is beyond salvation; it's not worth the trouble. Toffanin ( talk) 22:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete needs refs Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete. Can find no sources except the inventor's website and WP clones. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 16:57, 2 September 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:CSD#G7. Jenks24 ( talk) 08:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Darrell Vaughn

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

Non notable college football player who never played a game in the nfl according to nfl.com. Fails wp:athlete, prod disputed. delete' Pokerkiller ( talk) 17:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks for not notifying me about the prod or are. Real classy stuff but in the end I agreed and asked for the article to be redeleted. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 18:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 22:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 22:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete per WP:G7. User:Hell in a Bucket is the article creator, and concurs with the deletion. Let's not drag this out unnecessarily. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 23:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete. Coverage for athletes in the pre-internet era can be difficult to find. I've searched newspapers.com and google news, though, and don't find any significant coverage. For this reason, deletion seems appropriate for failure to satisfy WP:GNG. Cbl62 ( talk) 07:23, 29 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. Courcelles ( talk) 01:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Pierre-Alexandre Bois

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that Ligue 2 is fully pro. While this is of course true, it is also not relevant since he has yet to make an appearance in that league. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 16:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 16:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - no professional appearances Spiderone 09:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to List of hospitals in the Philippines. Courcelles ( talk) 01:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

List of hospitals in Zamboanga City

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

as per WP:NOTDIR. This list contains no notable entries and including community health centers is just pushing it for content. LibStar ( talk) 16:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Merge back into List of hospitals in the Philippines and then redirect. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Merge per Lugnuts - No need for a seperate article when it can be merged in to the main one. – Davey2010^Talk 18:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete. No hospitals listed with articles. If we had articles on some of these we could list those, but Wikipedia is not a medical directory. -- Michig ( talk) 07:07, 29 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. Courcelles ( talk) 01:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Steve uncles

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

Non-notable unsuccessful political candidate for minor political party. Gets a few mentions in passing in articles covering the election e.g. here but nothing substantial that comes close to meeting WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Finishing second-last, with 5% last time makes me doubt that any serious offline sources exist. Valenciano ( talk) 15:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Steve Uncles is a leading English Nationalist Politician in England, second only to Robin Tilbrook of the same political party English Democrats

The following press articles have been written about Steve Uncles

[6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

There are more articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by English4Truth ( talk • contribs) 17:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: English4Truth is as you might have guessed the same as English Truth, who created the article. They're a very new user who had to create a second account as they found themselves unable to log into the first, see User talk:English4Truth. Bishonen | talk 21:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC). reply

Delete we dont normally have articles on candidates only those elected, already mentioned as much as needed at England and Wales police and crime commissioner elections, 2012 and presumably will get a mention at England and Wales police and crime commissioner elections, 2016 when its created. No prejudice against re-creation if he wins a seat or position of note. MilborneOne ( talk) 17:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Bishonen | talk 18:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC). reply
Delete I agree with Bishonen. Tom Reedy ( talk) 20:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. Google and Google News searches for ("steve uncles") didn't turn up any in-depth coverage: only passing mentions and brief pieces. As highly unsuccessful (5% of vote) candidate for county-wide office, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Note that a Steve Uncles article, with proper capitalisation of the surname, was deleted in 2010. — Ammodramus ( talk) 15:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete agree with Bishonen clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 20:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete. Unelected candidates for office don't qualify for Wikipedia articles if their candidacy is the strongest notability claim you can make — he'll likely qualify for an article if he wins the election, but he doesn't get one just for being a candidate in it. Bearcat ( talk) 04:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete: per SNOW. Quis separabit? 22:22, 3 September 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. Courcelles ( talk) 01:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Shahaan Shaukat

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

Does not appear to be a notable musician. A search for reliable sources came up empty. I would have nominated this for speedy deletion, but there is a claim to notability: he won a "Radio Excellence Award" from an unspecified entity (although according to my search it was from a radio station). However, the award does not appear to be notable either. Narutolovehinata5 ^t
c
csd
new 13:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete No reliable coverage exists at all. Even Google news turns up 0 hits. Winner 42 Talk to me! 22:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - Exactly, my searches found nothing at all aside from social media and such. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete fails notability test—just an attempt to become famous. sami ^talk 05:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete self promotion. Umais Bin Sajjad ( talk) 04:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

First Tunisian Republic

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

Article cannot be attributed to reliable sources, appears to be an original concept or a neologism. Lappspira ( talk) 12:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete: It could be a totally plausible historical narrative in the future, but for the time being it should be deleted as there are no sources whatsoever (put aside reliable). Hansi667 (Neighbor Of The Beast) ^{a penny for your thoughts?} 17:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 22:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete: Agree with nominator and Toffanin. Also, the name of any page on the topic should EITHER be a variation of what the 1959 government called itself or, if that name is in use by the current government, a what the current government or other international organization such as the United Nations calls it. No page should be written until or unless either the world as a whole or the current government in particular starts to talk about the 1959-2011 "regime" as if it were a distinct government/regime/"nation" in Tunisia's history. Also, it would be right and proper to discuss any such page creation on Talk:Tunisia, as it would be a de facto split of the current article about that country. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 02:18, 29 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. Courcelles ( talk) 01:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Cedar Park School

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

No references at all; article does not explain why school is notable beyond the fact that it exists. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL. ubiquity ( talk) 12:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete per nomination. The article has no references. I wasn't able to spot any sources either. Doesn't seem to fulfill WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Hansi667 (Neighbor Of The Beast) ^{a penny for your thoughts?} 18:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 22:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete per general consensus is that primary schools are not "presumed" to be notable, and zero evidence that this particular primary school meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 02:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 29 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Matei Boilă

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

Delete: as non-notable politician. Quis separabit? 12:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Speedy keep: as notable politician ( WP:POLITICIAN), was senator thus held national office. Crispulop ( talk) 13:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 12:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep: Google news gives numerous results on the subject. I think it meets WP:GNG per Google results. There is also an article on the Romanian Wikipedia] about Matei Boilă. That could help the development of the English Wikipedia article as well. Hansi667 (Neighbor Of The Beast) ^{a penny for your thoughts?} 18:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Snow keep per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Politicians. Ineligible for "speedy keep" but ripe for an administrator do an early snow close, as in there's a "snowball's chance in Hades that this will be deleted for the reason given in the nomination". @ [email protected]: consider withdrawing the nomination and speedy-closing it yourself. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 03:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

OK: I withdraw the nomination but I don't know how to administratively close it out and someone else should do it. Thanks. Quis separabit? 03:03, 29 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. Courcelles ( talk) 01:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

2147483659 (number)

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

A deletion proposal was removed without explanation. That PROD said "Clear fail of Wikipedia:Notability (numbers)", and that seems to me to sum it up. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 10:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Well I spent a little while looking for a good redirect target. The number is surprisingly important, but not notable enough. Having said surprisingly it is a CITRIX error number and the next prime after a Mersenne prime, these are both due to it being just above a a 2 power, XB000000B). It is also a member (the 32nd) of a complete sequence, documented at (sequence A203074 in the OEIS), again linked to being the next prime after a 2 power. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC). reply

Maybe redirect to Complete_sequence#OEIS_A203074 All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC). reply

Delete as prodder. I still don't think it passes Wikipedia:Notability (numbers). "Next prime after a power of two" (or various nearly equivalent formulations) is one sort-of-interesting property in which it's only the 30th or so entry, and can be expressed more simply as "smallest prime number not expressible as a signed long", but what I want to see is two or more actually-interesting properties in which it's in the first five numbers. — David Eppstein ( talk) 15:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
- Depending on byte length of course. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC). reply
Weak delete or redirect. It's not like it's 8675309 or some such. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 03:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
delete I don’t see it being discussed at the suggested redirect target, which also is a hidden anchor, so anyone stumbling across it and following the redirect will be likely confused as to what bit of that article is relevant. No other plausible target suggests itself and it is certainly not independently notable.-- JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete Just not notable, per above. PianoDan ( talk) 13:33, 1 September 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. Courcelles ( talk) 01:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Chief Namakagon

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

Not based on WP:RS, website for book states it mixes fact and fiction, other information indicates Tanner died in 1846 and was positively ID'ed, book by itself is not sufficiently notable. GregJackP Boomer! 09:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep The subject is notable as there's more than one book about him. For example, see Chief Namakagon and The Legend of Silver in Northern Wisconsin. Andrew D. ( talk) 15:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment. That book is a self-published vanity press book. According to WorldCat, the book is held by exactly zero libraries worldwide, has no ISBN, and the author has only been self-published for all three of her books. Second, the author of the article has a WP:COI, admitted here. This will help the sales of his novels, which, as noted above, are fiction, not history. Third, there are no sources, other than the aforementioned COI editor, who has linked Namakagon with Tanner. All other sources on Tanner show that he died in 1846. To publish this as a hidden alias would be fine, were there sources (see, e.g., Billy the Kid and Brushy Bill Roberts). Here there are none. Finally, as shown in the COI link, this is WP:OR, research of the editor that has not been published elsewhere, besides his self-published series of novels on the issue. GregJackP Boomer! 17:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete Basically the article is for a fictional character in a series of self-published books. The character is based on some vague historical facts, but it remains a fiction, and a self-published one at that. Note that info about the book has been inserted by the same editor in the article for the lake of the same name, Lake Namakagon. This should be removed (which I will do now) since the article for the lake should not be used as an advertisement for an insignificant book. LaMona ( talk) 19:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete: I nom'd the article (using the incorrect template; sorry) before User:GregJackP. Concerned that the cited Ashland newspaper source was prob. a parody, but ironic intent may be hard to detect more than 150 years later. Namakagon was not a personal name; it appears to come from the Ojibwa for "lake rich with sturgeons" (see: Lake Namakagon). Even if a local "chief" legend were to prove notable, better sourcing and complete rewrite would be needed, without extraordinary claims about John Tanner (captive). — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 20:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:00, 1 September 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. Courcelles ( talk) 01:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Augustine hadley chase

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

Subject of the article fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. I can't find any evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Speedly Delete - I don't even see evidence that this person exists outside of this Wikipedia page. Both of the links in it go to nothing for me. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 10:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete: Obviously the article creator was trying out Wikipedia features OluwaCurtis »» ( talk to me) 18:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 22:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:57, 3 September 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:SNOW. Subject was a member of a national legislature. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 16:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Shabbir Ahmad Usmani

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

COmpletely unsourced, promotional article. FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 09:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 22:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 22:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 22:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 22:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment The outcome of this AFD will hinge on whether this institution is shown to be an "independently accredited degree-awarding institutions" or not and whether "independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists" (see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES). Alternatively, if those criteria aren't met but other criteria in WP:CORP or WP:GNG are met, then the page will probably be kept. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 03:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC) struck per below davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 21:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Did you mean to comment on a different discussion, perhaps the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamiah Islamiah Talimuddin Dabhel? Your observation would be highly pertinent there, but this is a biography... Worldbruce ( talk) 19:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Yes, exactly that one. I must've had both windows open at once. Striking comment. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 21:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep - Sources can easily be found and added, and "promotional" content can easily be removed. These are not grounds for deletion. Subject is very notable for his role in Pakistani politics and his Islamic scholarly contributions. -- Axiom292 ( talk) 06:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep Notable biography. Can be improved by adding references. Umais Bin Sajjad ( talk) 04:53, 31 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. Courcelles ( talk) 01:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

CleveMed

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

Maybe notable or maybe not, the article is rather promotional either way and my searches found nothing to suggest immediate improvement here, here, here, here, here and here. Considering this is from December 2008 with hardly any significant edits, I hope we can get a consensus. Notifying Ukexpat for comment. SwisterTwister talk 07:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Weak delete - Looks a little borderline to me. I have no further comment - my involvement was limited to moving the article into draft space and then some post-move clean up after the draft was accepted by someone else. ukexpat ( talk) 12:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete; can't find extensive coverage about this. Fails GNG and CORP. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:44, 3 September 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. no evidence of even significance, let alone notability. A7. DGG ( talk ) 18:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Cadsoft Corporation

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

My searches found nothing good at all to suggest improvement, here, here, here and here. This article has surprisingly stayed since December 2005 with absolutely no significant edits since then. Pinging tagger RJFJR for comment. SwisterTwister talk 06:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

(I don't think I am the one you wanted. Looks like user:Crecy99 is the one who added the tags. I just did some early wikification. RJFJR ( talk) 15:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 28 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. The "keep" opinions are weak: the first is merely an ad hominem, the second is all about WP:WAX. Sandstein 08:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Marta Urzúa

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

non-notable politician, sits in the town-council of a small commune in rural Chile. Does not pass Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians. Sietecolores ( talk) 06:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep. This nomination is full of bias: "small commune in rural Chile". Nothing else needs to be said. -- Diego Grez-Cañete ( talk) 20:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

I suggest potential commenters (and User:Vrac) to consider that much of the material that may serve as reference for this article is offline. Since I don't have the time to add the material myself, I suggest Chilean or Spanish-language editors to review content from the El Cóndor, Pichilemu and El Expreso de la Costa newspapers. I may provide some press clipping to whoever interested, there is material on Urzúa and I believe they pass the notability guidelines for politicians. -- Diego Grez-Cañete ( talk) 01:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment. Much more would be needed to be said to save the article from deletion since it does not pass notability tests for politicians. I suggest Diego Grez takes this content to his own webpage Memoriapichilemina. - Sietecolores ( talk) 10:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

You should stop your uncivil behavior, Sietecolores, and start putting out real reasons, and not just stupid accusations. Diego Grez-Cañete ( talk) 01:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete: as local politician fails WP:NPOL. Vrac ( talk) 16:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete. Searched Google and Google News for ("marta urzua" pichilemu). Found lots of passing mentions of Urzua in Spanish-language press, but no in-depth coverage. According to the WP article, Pichilemu has a population of 13,000; as a council member from a city of this size with no in-depth media coverage, Urzua fails WP:POLITICIAN. — Ammodramus ( talk) 13:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep Per WP:NPOL criteria #2 and #3, there appear to be at least three sources for the article, and I suggest that Spanish-language editors take a look at Chilean sources. The town may officially be small, but it apparently is a resort community, potential for systemic bias here (woman, third world, etc.) is significant. Further, there appears to be a precedent of these council members having WP articles, dating back at least to 2010, see: Category:Pichilemu City Council members. There is a surprising amount of information on Pichilemu here, see Portal:Pichilemu and Template:Pichilemu. I know nothing about this community nor its status in Chile, but seems that with articles on 36 mayors, a portal and a template, we either have notability or at least notoriety. Keep. Montanabw ^(talk) 04:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment. No Urzua does not pass criteria #2 and #3 she has very limited coverage by Chilean newspapers ( see here for example) and sources for the article are 2 government-related sites showing election results and the municipal website. That is not coverage that confer notability. And point #3 says "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability". The issue is crystal-clear. – Sietecolores ( talk) 10:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep - a long list of other councilors who held the same office have articles on Wikipedia, why are they notable but not she? Other councilors of the same community listed on her page: Aldo Polanco, Roberto Córdova, Juan Cornejo, Viviana Parraguez, Andrea Aranda, Patricio Morales, and Pichilemu political controversies#Víctor Rojas - Ogress _smash! 16:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

comment It doesn't matter how many but whether. -- Keysanger ( talk) 12:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Nominate all of them for deletion, right now, a textbook example of WP:OTHERSTUFF: "You cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do, or do not, exist; because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article.". Kraxler ( talk) 17:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete fails WP:NPOL, town councillors of small towns are not inherently notable, and coverage of this and the other town councillors who have articles here, is limited to their little hometown. Kraxler ( talk) 17:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete an article without any encyclopedic relevance. -- Keysanger ( talk) 12:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete Person received 179 votes is not enough to make them notable on anythingmore than a township scale IMO. Collect ( talk) 18:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete fails WP:NPOL, comment note that sources from El Expreso de la Costa are not independent as the article creator works there. see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_75#Memoria_Pichilemina 78.149.122.149 ( talk) 05:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Shouldn't the sources be independent from the subject they cover? Diego Grez-Cañete ( talk) 13:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply

The creator of the article should be independent of the subject. Kraxler ( talk) 19:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply

I don't see where there's a COI problem or a failure of independence here. As far as I know, it hasn't been established that El Expreso de la Costa or this article's creator has a significant connection to Urzúa.

Questions might legitimately be raised about the reliability of the source, if El Expreso is a very small paper at which the article's creator, as employee, is subject to very little fact-checking or other overview. Per WP:NEWSORG, "News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact." However, I think we should presume reliability unless there's a reason to suspect otherwise.

I question, however, whether coverage by a local media outlet can confer notability on a figure of only local importance. Although WP:GEOSCOPE refers to events rather than persons, the principle merits more general application. Without such a standard to exclude purely local coverage, we could establish notability for every small-town mayor, council member, and high-school wrestling coach in the United States alone. WP:POLITICIAN seems to set such a standard: while pols holding lesser offices, e.g. Kim Davis (county clerk), may indeed be notable, we should presume that they're not unless this notability has been established by sources beyond local ones. — Ammodramus ( talk) 23:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep Per the fact that the sources show she is notable, it could use some fixing though SuperCarnivore591 ( talk) 04:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Felisa Wolfe-Simon

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

This person authored a paper in a high impact scientific journal ("Science") that was later shown to be incorrect. Aside from this single mistake, she has done nothing particularly notable. The mistake in the Science paper is discussed in Hypothetical types of biochemistry#Arsenic as an alternative to phosphorus and probably some other articles. To some limited extent, the mistake made in her paper is thought provoking, but she isn't. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 01:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep. Too much has been written about her to call her not notable, i.e.: Time Magazine called her 1 of the 100 top most influential people in the world in 2011. Another long profile by Popular Science here A Google search produced many more references. ABF99 ( talk) 07:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep - I understand where you're coming from here, Smokefoot, (a kind of WP:BLP1E for scientists?) but I think ABF99 has it right. shoy ( reactions) 13:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply

I wouldn't be opposed to a merge to GFAJ-1, which seems to be the article covering the controversy (although it should perhaps be renamed). shoy ( reactions) 20:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - The Science Journal retracted the paper, and I don't care for Time Magazine's ethics of following suit. Her work was mistaken and debunked, and was not influential at all. Should we also make a biography on whoever said the Moon is made of Cheese? BatteryIncluded ( talk) 17:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Correction: The Science paper has not been retracted [12]. -- Paul ( talk) 10:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment I worry a little bit that the article stigmatizes her. As a female in a male-dominated science world, she was (almost unfairly) propelled to Time-mag like fleeting luminosity, and she must rue the notoriety conferred by Wikipedia. Based on Chemical Abstracts search - she stopped publishing at that Science paper in 2011 except for a rebuttal that made things only worse. She has 11 publications, including the rebuttal. But editors here have a better sense than do I which way to go.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 22:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete. What Smokefoot says. Felisa has taken her website down; one wouldn't think she'd be keen to have a Wikipedia page either. To Shoy: there's been stuff written on her strain of bacterium but there's preciously little sustained attention on her person. 144.92.4.49 ( talk) 18:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete. No lasting impact, fails WP:BIO1E. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep. Sometimes scholarly work can be a notable failure. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 19:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep per Hullaballoo. Science expects giant flame-outs, and people who make such are notorious, and yes, even notable. Bearian ( talk) 00:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 ^Talk 06:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete I share Smokefoot's concerns about this article. This is basically one event, even if it's one event that got a lot of media coverage. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 09:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep. I think we all realize that cases like this are tricky. However, the subject has a reasonable publication/citation record. Although I count h-index of 11 (WoS, typically considered borderline), she has a couple of reasonably well-cited first author papers (including the science paper) with >500 total citations. Regarding questions of whether she is still active in science – these are irrelevant (we still have a page on Einstein, but he's no longer active). WoS shows the Science paper is still being cited frequently, some of which are in the context of post-publication review, no doubt related to the controversy. However, I don't think it is our job (or probably within our ability) to judge the context of these citations. That they are there renders her notable. I'm not aware that she has requested article deletion, so I likewise don't think we have any judicial say at the moment to delete the article on those grounds either (as has been hinted at above). Agricola44 ( talk) 22:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC). reply
Delete with some merging. I was almost going to go for a weak keep as cases like this where scientific results are noticeable overturned and reported upon can be notable per WP:FRINGE (and interesting to boot). However, the content on the Science article would fit much better in GFAJ-1. Beyond that, there's not a claim to fame for this researcher, so I would delete the bio page once information is incorporated into the GFAJ-1 page. Most of the current content there seems to be in this page as well, so there likely isn't too much needed to be moved over if any unless I missed something in my quick skim. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 04:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Her work is in a mainstream area of science. It just happens to be that a particular aspect she had proposed is wrong. This happens in science all the time, though not typically to this scale. FRINGE does not apply in this particular case. Agricola44 ( talk) 12:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC). reply

Delete per the nominator and David. Ironholds ( talk) 01:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep per Agricola et al. - she's been covered in enough RS and her work has gone beyond this one massive debacle. She'd probably pass WP:PROF even without it, though I'd have to do some digging. Keilana ( talk) 01:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep, I guess? A person listed in a time top 100 most influentual people in the world is considered for deletion on wikipedia due to non-notability. Clearly One great publication is wrong. I'll errr on the side of keeping -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 02:10, 5 September 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. Courcelles ( talk) 01:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Hypnoskull

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. ( ?) Lots of AllMusic listings but no reviews in a basic music RS search. Only hits in Google Books were mentions, nothing in-depth. Perhaps there's coverage in non-English sources? There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ ping}} me. – czar 16:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 01:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 01:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete without prejudice as it stands - it really needs anything at all in the way of (third-party, verifiable) references - David Gerard ( talk) 00:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Probably delete for now - I can't translate any of this but my searches regardless found nothing better aside from this and this. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply
- [13] ... yeah, it's a bit skimpy. That said, the coverage there is (book mentions, etc.) strongly suggests there should be usable RSes ... but where are they? - David Gerard ( talk) 10:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment: some print sources "Hypnoskull"&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1 here. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens ( talk) 02:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply

I don't see anything more than passing mentions at that link, so I'm not sure why you posted it. – czar 22:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 ^Talk 06:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete – Beyond the fact that there doesn't seem to be anything beyond passing mentions or listings, and although it seems like a band this old would have some coverage, the page has had fewer than fifty edits in ten years, and only 500 views in the last three months. I don't think the article will be missed, but I agree with David Gerard above that this should be without prejudice against recreation, if anyone cares enough to try later on. — Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Anand Sen (business person)

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

The article did not meet the notability guideline for biographies. . Shlok _{talk .} 06:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete due to lack of reliable independent sources and evidence of meeting inclusion criteria. Guy ( Help!) 08:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep Tata are "quite large", to say the least. Mr Sen has a very senior role within Tata. Anything else is cleanup. Andy Dingley ( talk) 10:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

This is a WP:BLP. Sourcing is a matter of urgency, not one-day-someone-might-clean-this-up. Guy ( Help!) 10:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

There is a big difference between "Is Mr Sen a <foo>" and "Mr Sen is a <foo>, but does that make him notable?". Our problems in this AfD are almost all of the second form. Andy Dingley ( talk) 15:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Up to a point, Lord Copper. If he is notable then there will be non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. No such sources are included in the article. I did, incidentally, check Highbeam, but there are only namechecks. I will admit that my circle of acquaintances does not encompass companies this big, but I know one former Fortune 500 CEO who made the cover of Time, which counts, and I know others of similar seniority who have no coverage in RS at all. I also know one who is quite a bit further down the tree but has non-trivial coverage due to his hobby. Guy ( Help!) 15:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

LinkedIn for Fortune 500s, http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/people/person.asp?personId=23335673&ticker=874170 It's not hard to find more. Andy Dingley ( talk) 20:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - There's no "B" in this BLP. We can vouch for his position, but per WP:CORP he's not necessarily notable for it, and he doesn't inherit from Tata Steel. The sources are also not independent - having a Bloomberg Stock listing isn't proof of notability; it's a management reporting requirement sourced from the company's filings. Nothing else in there is biographically useful. I'm also skeptical of the Indian Institute of Metals medal meeting criteria in this case - the IIM article states that it rents its office space from Tata Steel, and doesn't mention the medal at all. So I question the independence of the award with on other justification, and I question the notability of the award when it's not mentioned. His "so many papers" linked from that other guy's page amount to exactly one co-authorship on a peer-reviewed journal. The other sourced are from Tata, so they aren't independent and only speak to existence. Show me something arm's-length, and that's a different story, but I'm not seeing it so far in my searches. MSJapan ( talk) 23:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete. Absolutely nothing is verifiable by reliable sources. The sources are not even wrong -- one links to a different person, possibly a mentor. Even if this could be made into an article, it needs to be destroyed and started from scratch. Bearian ( talk) 16:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete per WP:GNG and WP:BLP. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 09:40, 3 September 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. Courcelles ( talk) 01:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Rin Ogawa

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

Appears to fail pornbio and gng Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 05:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 05:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 05:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - Fails PORNBIO & GNG. – Davey2010^Talk 04:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 ^Talk 06:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete fails PORNBIO and GNG Kraxler ( talk) 17:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete. Claim of notability appears to rest on multiple appearances in various non-notable erotica releases, which satisfies none of the potentially relevant SNGs. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 17:02, 2 September 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. No more comments after two relistings. Pretty clear kicking the can down the road seven more days won't do any good. Courcelles ( talk) 01:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Ahmed Ibrahim Artan

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

This page was previously created as Ahmed Haaji Ibrahim Artan Beeldaaje and was nominated in a previous AfD discussion. (As of this writing it does not show up in the "AfDs for this article" box.) It was moved to its current page name during the earlier AfD. The result of the AfD discussion was delete. Article was twice re-created and speedily deleted ( WP:G4). This new version does not improve much upon the original, but it differs enough that I brought it here instead of using CSD again. There are a few more sentences in the body, but it still faces the original issue of citing references that are in the Somali language and cannot be verified (in English). Of these sources, one does not appear to be a news article, nor anything else that would serve as a reliable source (in any language), and was apparently written by the subject himself ( link). The article cites one English language source ( link), to support the assertion that Ibrahim Artan Ismail is the subject's father. However, the source only mentions Ibrahim Artan Ismail's political role, nothing about any familial relationship. I deleted ( diff) another English source ( link) that ostensibly corroborated the subject's clan affiliation; however the source didn't mention anything about that and I removed the sentence in question. That source did quote the subject as a "Writer and Political Figure" but I am not sure about the notability of the source itself and it would appear to be WP:SPS. Delete. Gyrofrog (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

P.S. All of the Somali-language sources appear to have been written by the subject himself. They might be allowable within WP:ABOUTSELF (except item 5 stipulates "the article is not based primarily on such sources", which this article is). On their own I'm not sure these references sufficiently establish notability, which was another primary concern in the earlier AfD. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Citations to non-English sources are explicitly allowed by WP:V, and there appear to be other Somali-language sources available to support the subject's notability. Nikkimaria ( talk) 17:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

I'm more concerned that four of the five sources were written by the subject himself, as these would presumably establish his notability. I'm not seeing these other sources, at least not via the above "find sources" links. To put it another way, I'm unable to verify this or previous iterations of this article, which say the subject is a diplomat, or was a presidential adviser (which would indeed be notable). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

The search is complicated by the fact that the subject appears to use many different name variations, which makes it hard to search. A326, can you weigh in? Nikkimaria ( talk) 18:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

A326, in response to my question at their talk page, offered this link. It does mention "Ahmed Haji Hajji Ibrahim Artan," but I am unsure in what context. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi Nikkimaria Ahmed Ibrahim Artan is a Somali athor and polition well known as Ahmed Haaji Bakiin. (Haaji Bakiin)is a father's nickname, and he was the owner of hotels and bares called Bakiin in the capital city of Somalia his father is Polition as well Ibrahim Artan Ismail. The father has 32 children including Ahmed fortunately Ahmed became well known then the athers. Family name Artan was a Somali ruler. He led the Ali Saleebaan Sultanate during its Golden Age in the mid-19th to early 20th centuries. Along with Sultan Yusuf Ali Kenadid of the Sultanate of Hobyo and Sultan Mohamoud Ali Shire of the Warsangali Sultanate, Beeldaaje Artan was one of the forth prominent rulers of present-day Somalia at the turn of the 20th century.people call him Ahmed Haaji Bakiin, Ahmed Haaji Ibrahim Artan Beeldaaje , or (Ahmed Ibrahim Artan wich is his birth name) Gyrofrog have requested to delete that article before , and it seems he's personal attack. Gyrofrong I let you know that person from well known family and he's well known polition person who most of the people know him. We need his article to stay , and we need you to get away please. A326 (talk)--A326 19:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

It is not my intent to attack anyone. I do want to clarify that I did not make the earlier nomination for deletion, and that I made one (not all) of the three speedy deletions. I'm not out to attack anyone or anything. My concern is that I've seen this content repeatedly re-created, while the issues with the article have yet to be addressed. As for his other name, Ahmed Haaji Bakiin, I'm not seeing much on Google other than blogs, Facebook, Google+, or things that the subject wrote himself – nothing that I'd use as a reliable source. If he's well-known, I would expect there to be more about him (written by someone else) online. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Gyrofrog there a lot of reliable source that written by Somali language. There millions of articles which has source written by native languages such as Arabic , Amharic and hebrew itc So that person is Somali. [14] [15] A326 ( talk--A326 20:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

you wrote your talk page ( As per Wiki History Log alot of Somalia history is or has being Omitted, Vandalized or used for personal instead of Real facts of history) it seems you hatred for Somali people that's why you are always attacking. Hatred A326 ( talk--A326 21:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment: I had clarified this at User talk:A326, but since my name is linked with it here as well: I did not write that statement on my talk page. Another user left it there for me, though I don't know if it referred to a particular article. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Nikkimaria There are a lot of sources written by Somali-language, and we need you to support the article thanks A326 ( talk--A326 22:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

We're working on it, but since we don't speak Somali we need your help to find reliable sourcing to support the article. Would it be possible to add a few more, either here or in the article itself? Ideally some that are not written by him. Nikkimaria ( talk) 00:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:WikiProject Somalia notified. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 05:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete articles need to have sources other than the subjects own works. Beyond that being "an advisor" to the President of Somalia (which one is unclear) sounds notable on first glance, but without further explanation could mean anything. Presidents can have a whole lot of people giving them advice, and not all such people will be notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment I think it would be better for people to work on fleshing out the article on Ibrahim Artan Ismail with more indepth details. For example, from that article one would suppose he has no children. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Nikkimaria The resourcing we have is here [16] [17] [18] [19] Also I'm still working on that article I don't have all his life history but I'm searching a lot more about his life history positions that he held and book that he wrote so I need more chance to complete all the resource. In election time probably I'll get more resource written by English, news will talk about his early life and positions that he held during that time. please I need more chance promise I'll write more about his life and I will bring more resource.Please I need you guys to remove deletion tag on the article. hopeful Thanks A326 ( talk--A326 14:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Nikkimaria Here tody news about Somalia [20] A326 ( talk --A326 16:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Gyrofrog did you see the link ? A326 ( talk--A326 18:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

I've incorporated the link into the article. However, the impeachment issue does seem to have garnered a fair amount of coverage ( Google news), so I must admit I'm curious why only this one source saw fit to quote this person. (Note that when you add "/link" to the end of a link, it breaks it. Do it like [http://somewebsite.com link], with a space before the word "link".) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

with space ok thanks link A326 ( talk--A326 19:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

A326, now I see where I misread the linked news article: it's written in such a way that it kind of implies he advised Hassan Sheikh Mohamoud. When I re-read it I can see that isn't what it says. However, you changed the president's name to Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed, who isn't mentioned in the news article. It doesn't specify which president he advised; John Pack Lambert had already mentioned this among his concerns. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

He was the adviser of Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed during his tine in office letter he served in same position during Sheikh Sharif Ahmad late 2012 president Hassan appointed a anther person on that position. Thanks A326 ( talk--A326 20:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

I understand, but the link doesn't say anything about that. We can cite that link to say he was an adviser (which it specifies), but not for whom (because it doesn't specify). We would need another source about him advising Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep - on balance I think the additional sourcing is sufficient to indicate notability, and I'm hopeful that A326 will be able to continue to improve the article using available Somali-language sources as well. (A326: note that the tag won't be removed until the AFD is closed, which usually happens after 7 days). Nikkimaria ( talk) 19:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Nikkimaria thank you very mach I'll work more about it. A326 ( talk--A326 19:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional time for discussion and evaluation of foreign language sources. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 ^Talk 06:12, 28 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. You don't nominate articles within hours of the previous one closing as it's disruptive, Well it's been a week and still no one gives a toss so i suggest you don't nominate this for a third time as you could end up blocked!, Rant over. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010^Talk 01:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Sardha Wijesoma

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

This article has been previously nominated for deletion, with the decision being to close the AfD with no consensus. I believe that the article in fact fails criteria #1 of WP:NACADEMICS, in that the criteria states "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". It has been previously argued that Wijesoma is a widely cited scholar, with 349 citations. WP:ACADEMICS clearly states that "To count towards satisfying Criterion 1, citations need to occur in peer-reviewed scholarly publications such as journals or academic books." I don't believe that there is sufficient evidence provided to satisfy this requirement. WP:ACADEMICS also goes onto to state "Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1". In any case none of the evidence relating to Wijesoma's research is included within the article itself (i.e. 'demonstrated by independent sources') Dan arndt ( talk) 06:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt ( talk) 06:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt ( talk) 06:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt ( talk) 06:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt ( talk) 06:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt ( talk) 06:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Speedy keep, speedy close. Stop wasting the community's time. No one supported the initial nomination in the three weeks since you made it. Reopening the discussion not even three hours after it was closed borders on abusive. There are appropriate steps to take, but this isn't one of them. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 18:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment - If I thought I was wasting anyone's time I wouldn't have nominated the article. I do think that the subject lacks any credible notability, the fact that the previous nomination was not supported, is more likely a combination of apathy and that I didn't provide a clear explanation of why I thought that the subject wasn't notable - the second part I have tried to correct here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz if you believe it should be kept at least have the decency to explain why . Dan arndt ( talk) 15:08, 29 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. Nobody apart from a WP:SPA opposes the deletion. Sandstein 08:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Tamra-Tacoma Capital Partners

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

Fails WP:CORP. Two or three independent sources merely establish that the company lends money. No true in-depth info as required by notability guideline. Brianhe ( talk) 22:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Company is not a lender; Private equity firm with reputable sources inclusive of Bloomberg. See CIVC Partners, Olympus Partners, Pamlico Capital and Morgenthaler for ref. ContentCrea ( talk) 23:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 ( talk) 22:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

The WP article is a quotation from the Tamra-Tacoma web-site and is just an advertisement for Tamra-Tacoma. The article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.12.160 ( talk) 08:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Lending and equity are much the same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.29.26 ( talk) 09:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Undecided. There is a favorable opinion column focusing on the company at http://www. examiner.com, which is on the WP blacklist for some reason. I don't know if this is enough to keep this article, though. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 05:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

@ BeenAroundAWhile: There's actually an explanation as to why it's blacklisted, it has been notorious for allowing itself to be confused with the San Francisco Examiner and other reliability issues (believe me, I've found some good stuff that can be used here at Wiki but there's need to be uplifting and covincing consensus for removing it). SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 ^Talk 12:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 04:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 04:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 04:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 04:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete for now as my searches found nothing convincingly good, here, here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 ^Talk 06:09, 28 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. Jujutacular ( talk) 04:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Google Cultural Institute Pakistan

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

No useful, looks like advertising. We have Google Cultural Institute and I don't understand why we need this. Eugεn S¡m¡on (14) ® 20:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 14. — ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment The first paragraph is a close paraphrasing of this page's first paragraph. Adam9007 ( talk) 00:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep There are several reasons for keeping this page separate than the global Cultural Institute (CI) one:

- that global page [ [21]] is so very basic without any details or focus on any of it's exhibits
- each geography is a different challenge and CI was executed in Pakistan (PK) very differently and that needs to be shared
- there are few very interesting project-related stories which will be added to this page as soon as CI is launched formally in PK
- considering Wikipedia as an online encyclopedia, this page can be a great source of very localized information about the project beyond what Google 'officially' would share
- general local users in PK don't get the background and context of what this project is and there's no other platform to explain that better
- existing content can certainly be improved so will work on that
- not being a very regular Wikipedia contributor, please guide if this is the right page to share feedback to counter deletion of proposed page: [ [22]
-- Badar76 ( talk) 10:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Addition to above Keep comments:

- the global CI wiki page[ [23]] is not at all properly maintained on Wiki [ e.g. like Street View [ [24]
- there are several examples of region/product/event Google related pages e.g. Google China [ [25]], Book Search Settlement Agreement [ [26]], Coverage of SV [ [27]], Google Bus Protests [ [28]], Oracle vs. Google [ [29]
-- Badar76 ( talk) 19:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete I'm not even sure if this institute exists. The Tribune article is about the signing of an MOU between Google and the Punjab government to allow Google 'access to heritage and cultural sites'. No mention of any institute nor any indication that it's a state-wide initiative. bizmanagement.pk seems to be a spam website and doesn't disclose any actual information on the institute. punjab.gov.pk is merely a local website for the Punjab government and in the article I was only able to find a single picture of a meeting between the managing director a Punjab organization and Nelson Matteos (maybe I missed something though). Two of the other references are blog posts (and even, they don't mention any 'Google Cultural Institute Pakistan'). After an examination of the sources and my own research, I am very skeptical of this institute's existence. Even if it does exist, then it is most likely is not notable enough and almost definitely is not a national initiative. Elspamo4 ( talk) 19:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply

~~Keep:~~ Please, no keep twice.. Regards— ☮ JAaron95 ^Talk 12:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply

- Google just launched Pakistan project online and I just added the link to the page -- please check and verify!
- Biz Management website, as the local executing partner, can't disclose any info until PR embargo is lifted (another 12 hours to go)
- In the Punjab Government newsletter PDF, scroll down to Page # 6 and look for "Posing for Explore Punjab" section -- you'll Nelson Mattos pic there
- The other two official Google blog posts never were about CI; if u read carefully, they are part of the project background/context and related to MapMaker and how it helped Pakistan
- Again, for the last point, the best evidence is Google's own launch -- just added the link to the main page -- kindly check
-- Badar76 ( talk) 21:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 ^Talk 12:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 ^Talk 06:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. If the very first sentence is adspeak evidently copied from somewhere, and nobody has been interested enough to fix this, why are we even having this discussion? It is not evident form the article or the sparse sources what this "Institute" is even supposed to be; the sources describe some sort of cultural collaboration between Google and Pakistan but do not seem to describe an "Institute". Fails WP:V, borderline G11 speedy deletion case. Sandstein 08:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete as per nom. Searches returned nothing to indicate that this organization meets the notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was procedural closure. Nomination by blocked sock, not much input, already relisted twice. May be speedily renominated, provided WP:BEFORE is observed. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 17:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

V. Jayashankarr

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

Non notable. The references included are very poor. Wikipediaismadebypeoplelikeus ( talk) 17:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Probably delete if this can't be improved as my searches found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 06:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 ^Talk 12:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 ^Talk 06:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 09:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 09:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment. The nominator is a blocked sockpuppet – please see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody/Accounts. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 23:46, 31 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. ( NPASR) ( non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (parlez) @ 16:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Zina Yazji

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

Television anchor in the mid-east. Searches on news returned a very few brief mentions, but nothing in-depth, and not enough of a non-trivial nature to satisfy WP:BASIC. The other searches returned zero results. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose. The article isn't well sourced right now, but I'm finding a good deal about her resignation from anchor of a Syrian program. Her voice in support of Assad seems to have made quite a splash. She also made a list of most powerful Arab women in 2013. Given the influence of news anchors, I'm in favor of keeping and improving this article. Fuzchia ( talk) 05:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 ^Talk 12:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 ^Talk 06:08, 28 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. Nobody opposes the deletion. Sandstein 08:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Ahmad Chebbani

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

I do not see notability here; the references do not appear reliable for the purpose. DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment There is a book entitled Arab Detroit: From Margin to Mainstream, which may or may not mention Chebbani. I used to have a copy but got rid of it or at least can't find it. I would advise searching that book before making a decision. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
- I'll check the book at my local public library in the next 3 or so days to see if it mentions Chebbani. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete (then draft & userfy) unless it can be improved as my searches found nothing better here, here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 ^Talk 12:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 ^Talk 06:08, 28 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. Soft delete, no objections to deletion in 21 days. Courcelles ( talk) 01:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Chinese Physics Olympiad

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

Article does not meet wikipedia guidelines 495656778774 ( talk) 12:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

delete. I had a look on zh.wp and it does not have its own article there, just a paragraph in another on national contests for schools zh:全国中学生学科奥林匹克竞赛#物理学, which suggests to me it is not notable. The refs there are to documents at The Chinese Physics Society but that’s almost all in Chinese so difficult to use here, but it does not look like a reliable independent source anyway.-- JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 04:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 ^Talk 14:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 ^Talk 06:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 07:55, 29 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. Nobody actually wants to keep, so... Sandstein 08:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Sanwa Denshi (video game)

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

This does not look like it will pass WP:ORG as this is more like a business to business brand and hardly anything else as I only heard of the joystick brands who it supply to. As I tried looking [30] and [31] this article does not say how they are notable, all it says that their products is arcade quality, their buttons is fitted on [x] brand joystick or that they are a leading brand but not how just like this article, so in other words, more like Wikipedia assisted notability. Donnie Park ( talk) 11:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 11:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 11:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete Current article is 100% OR, so removing unsourced content means removing the entire page. No comment on notability, as being a Japanese company makes it hard to tell if there are Japanese sources. CorporateM ( Talk) 01:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Commment Checking Japanese sources, it seems it does get decent coverage in the gaming press, especially at the major game shows, where it sets up a big booth: [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], etc. There's even a video report on their booth from Famitsu, the major gaming magazine in Japan: [38]. I am not that familiar with the Japanese gaming press, so I would like to hear from those who are. Michitaro ( talk) 05:47, 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) 02:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 ^Talk 14:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Commment If this survives, as agreed with an IP user on the talk section, this article should be renamed Sanwa Denshi (arcade game component manufacturer) to avoid confusion with Sanwa Electronic who share the same kanji in its first four letters (三和電子) and use the URL sanwa-denshi. Donnie Park ( talk) 23:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 ^Talk 06:08, 28 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. sufficient consensus after the elisting DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Atlantic Provinces Professional Fire Fighters Association

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

Basically I can't find much for this organization and I thought of PROD and speedy but comments from users may help in case this can be mentioned at IAFF's article (which seems to be affiliated with this one). My searches found nothing particularly good especially to make improvements (not even local notability), here, here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 19:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 04:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 04:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete unsources article on a non-notable professional association, no coverage anywhere, fails WP:ORGDEPTH Kraxler ( talk) 01:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 ^Talk 06:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

delete fails WP:ORG. twister"s searches demonstrate clear lack of coverage. LibStar ( talk) 16:43, 28 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. Courcelles ( talk) 01:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Crave (Cryptocurrency)

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

Fails general notability: zero coverage, sources point to web forums. Article creator is in charge of product. Blackguard 05:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - lacks reliable sources independent of the subject. VQuakr ( talk) 05:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 06:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 23:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 23:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - case of WP:TOOSOON. New coin, traded on some small exchanges, with market cap under US$25k [39]. Not finding enough significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet notability threshold. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR ( talk) 11:38, 1 September 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) 01:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Western Flyer

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

What it really gets down to is I want this page deleted so I can create an article on the historic ship SS Western Flyer without having to DAB it. That said, this article legitimately should be deleted as it doesn't meet notability for WP:BAND. The closest it comes to is "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart,", however its one appearance (#36 in 1996) was on a genre chart which I don't believe is covered by the WP:BAND catchall criteria. LavaBaron ( talk) 05:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 28. — ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep - Allmusic states that they have three separate singles that were popular enough to hit the charts: "She Should've Been Mine" and "Western Flyer" ( from their first album) and "What Will You Do With M-E" ( from their second album). The last of which even hit the 'Top 40'. As far as their other songs, it looks like their "Cherokee Highway" song got enough of a positive reception (even if it didn't chart in the U.S.) that Billboard commented on it due to the song's subject matter-- the group performed at the Martin Luther King Jr. Birthday celebration in Atlanta as a result. All of this makes me think that they're notable enough. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 06:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

The MLK Birthday Celebration in Atlanta is a huge event at which dozens of, mostly local, bands perform during a 6-hour free concert in a park. This is not an event at which multi-platinum bands descend upon. It's a community festival composed almost exclusively of local gig bands, like any community festival or fair in a mid-major city. While it's a great event, I really don't think it's logical to assign it the status of an important milestone on the annual musical calendar that, once a band has played it, they have made it. Also, I'll again note, their chart-hitting songs were brief, low positions on genre charts. I'm under the impression a genre chart doesn't count for the WP:BAND "national chart" criteria. LavaBaron ( talk) 15:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

It's not that they're notable because they played at that event. Like I said, it's because their playing at event and the socio-political related nature of the song that got them into the event (this reminds me of the " Same Love" single) got enough notice for Billboard to talk about them. Billboard is rather far from a mere local or community oriented newspaper. And it's not like they had no hits. They had three (two more than the many' one hit wonder' groups that have Wiki pages), one of which was a top 40 single that still gets airplay, and I fail to see how this group isn't notable. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 02:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

"It's not that they're notable because they played at that event. Like I said, it's because their playing at event and the socio-political related nature of the song that got them into the event ..." - so if my not-notable band writes a song that gets us invited to a not-notable music festival, we're now notable. Got it. LavaBaron ( talk) 19:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply

If a well-known band (with three hits, at least two more than your average country band) gets an invitation to a big musical festival based on a socio-political controversy such that the news is so important that Billboard reports on it, then that's worth noting. That's not a stretch at all. Once again, Billboard is not some cheap zine, for crying out loud, they're one of the most notable music related publications in the entire freaking country.

If you had a country band that wrote a song about, say, how traditionalist Christianity among southerners has contributed to homophobic hate crimes and criticize the culture attitudes in the south in your country song as you sing in support of equality, and the likes of Billboard thought that the ensuing discussions was notable enough to mention, with Billboard reporting especially how the controversy has led civil rights minded groups to promote your band in a big music festival... yeah, if that happened now, I would consider it strong evidence towards your group having a Wiki page. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 06:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep per CoffeeWithMarkets. Another example of newspaper coverage is here. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 14:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Their gig at a bar in Wichita was mentioned in the Lakeland Ledger?! Man, what was I thinking AfD'ing this. LavaBaron ( talk) 15:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 23:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment. Very minor hits on a Billboard genre chart are not really convincing as a claim to notability, although they at least make the band borderline. There's a bit more minor coverage here. Neither of the two band members with articles have convincing independent notability. I think we need more evidence of coverage here, or at least something that gives us confidence that it exists. -- Michig ( talk) 07:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
- I still think this is borderline based on what has been identified so far, but the likelihood is that further coverage exists, and I don't really see a benefit to the project from deleting this, so weak keep for me. -- Michig ( talk) 17:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep, passes WP:BAND with and two albums on a notable label, plus a Top 40 hit on Hot Country Songs. The sources from Lakeland Ledger, The Times-Leader, and Deseret News already in the article are clearly non-trivial, and additional coverage in Billboard here, here, here, here, here, and here, including reviews of three of their singles. MusicHound Country also has significant mention of the band here. I think this is clearly more than sufficient coverage to pass. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(
What did I screw up now?)} 04:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply
@ LavaBaron: Per WP:OUTCOMES, Hot Country Songs is considered a major enough chart to pass WP:BAND; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cole Swindell, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark McGuinn, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lenny Gault et al. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(
What did I screw up now?)} 04:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply

A one-line CD listing in a CD catalog constitutes "significant mention?" LavaBaron ( talk) 06:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply

@ LavaBaron: The Google Books excerpt seems to be longer than one line from what I can pick up in Google Books. Also, did you miss all the Billboard references above? Reviews of three singles certainly convey a non-trivial degree of notability. And again, you have yet to comment on the Deseret News article or any of the other articles already cited. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(
What did I screw up now?)} 06:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply

While those are nice, they don't meet WP:BAND criteria. There's a lot of chaffe being fired into the air and I don't have time to comment on all of it (e.g. the note in the Lakeland Ledger that the band was playing a bar gig in Wichita one evening in 1987 as "massive coverage"), which is why some of my replies may be absent a point-by-point rebuttal. Most of this doesn't pass the smell test on its own, it doesn't require my dissection or WP:LASTWORD. LavaBaron ( talk) 07:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply

You don't think "Charted single in the top 40 of a major chart" or "two albums on a notable label" = WP:BAND? You don't think that reviews in Billboard, one of the most definitive music magazines ever, is WP:BAND? Tell me how reviews of singles are "Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising", "Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories", or "Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases", the only things excluded by criterion #1. Tell me how #32 on Hot Country Songs and another single at #38 on RPM Country Tracks are somehow not good enough for "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart", especially when I pointed out above that Hot Country Songs has a precedent for being a sufficiently widespread national music chart. Tell me how two albums on Step One Records does not translate to "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." I sure see a lot more blue links than red on Step One's list of artists, meaning that they meet the "roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable" criterion. For the record, this is what the MusicHound book says: "…the band stakes out some solid country-rock turf with the title tune and the cautionary tale of racism, 'Cherokee Highway.' However, not all the songwriting is as substantive. Their second album… lapses into bland balladeering, with an occasional stab at Springsteen-style roots-rock. Trouble is they sound more like a Chevy ad than they do the Boss." That sounds like a review to me, and reviews are most certainly fine for "non-trivial coverage". Further significant coverage: here, here. New Country magazine often reviewed obscure acts like this, so I'll check the late 1996 issues if I can get my hands on them. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(
What did I screw up now?)} 07:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply

The first sentence of your treatise I already addressed (it was a genre chart). You typed a lot after that. To save time, I'm going to assume the rest of your questions are also repetition of what's already been addressed and stop there but, if not, let me know and I'll give it a skim. Thanks. LavaBaron ( talk) 10:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Okay, but I've shown you that there is precedent for this being a genre chart major enough to meet the criterion of WP:BAND. Can you show me any counterexamples where "just a genre chart" was not enough? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(
What did I screw up now?)} 17:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply

There's no such thing as precedent. LavaBaron ( talk) 20:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply

@ LavaBaron: And you're not giving me any good reason why Hot Country Songs somehow does not pass muster, because it's "just a genre chart". Where has "just a genre chart" been a valid argument in the past? I've never seen anyone split hairs over which charts do and do not qualify for that criterion of WP:BAND like this. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(
What did I screw up now?)} 22:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply

That's nice. LavaBaron ( talk) 00:18, 3 September 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:SNOW. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 17:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Michigan Bucks

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

Contested PROD. Fails notability criteria. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep - USPDL-clubs, as a rule, do appear to be notable. (see this afd for example). The club also meets the club notability guidelines laid out at WP:FOOTYN having played in the Lamar Hunt Open Cup. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 19:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
- That's not how it works. If this team is not notable, then this article should be deleted. Find sources. I could not. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 04:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 23:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 23:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep - playing in the 4th tier of US soccer is notable. Giant Snowman 09:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
- Fourth tier in England is notable. It's not in the US. Second tier barely achieves recognition in the US. Even if it were, this team is not. Please proved RSes that this team is notable. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 16:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep - The article clearly documents two decades of playing in the Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup clearly meeting the requirements laid out in WP:FOOTYN. Other past AFDs for other teams in this league started by the same editor have also established clear and near-unanimous consensus despite not meeting those WP:FOOTYN requirements. Teams at this level typically meet WP:GNG with examples such as [40]. Nfitz ( talk) 20:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply
- Closing admin: Please note that the arguments in favour of keeping do not use any guidelines or polices. The team does not have any reliable sources. being a member of a notable league does not make the team any more notable than being a non-notable band on a notable record label. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 04:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  - Closing admin. Please note that User:Walter Görlitz has a history of nominating teams in this league for deletion, despite precedent-setting near-unanimous rejection. Please also note that while WP:FOOTYN is neither a guideline nor a policy, it does represent community consensus and may be consulted for assistance during an AfD discussion. Nfitz ( talk) 00:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    - I have a history of nominating a number of non-notable subjects for deletion. The fact that this team is not notable while the league currently meets notability guidelines should not be conflated. If you can't keep classes and their objects separate, it's time to stop editing Nfitz. That seems to be the case for you and several other editors here. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 03:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep - The applicable notability standards for sports teams (and all other organizations) are WP:ORG and WP:GNG, which this subject easily satisfies with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources in the U.S. midwestern regional media. Here's a sample: [41]; there are so many articles from the Michigan regional media, I'm not going to bother linking individual examples. Anyone interested can feel free to sort through the Google results. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 22:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep Passes GNG per Dirtlawyer. There is a decent amount of local attention for this team. ~ EDDY ^{(
talk/
contribs)}~ 15:43, 1 September 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:SNOW. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 17:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

WSA Winnipeg

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

Contested PROD. Fails notability criteria. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep. Equally notable as other teams in its division. Radagast ( talk) 23:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
- They are not notable. There are no sources and I could find none. You must prove that they are notable, not simply pronounce it. Walter Görlitz ( talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 23:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 23:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 23:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep - There is no indication that the subject or consensus on club notability has changed significantly since the last afd. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 03:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
- The criteria for inclusion has. WP:GNG and others. Please provide sources. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 04:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep - playing in the 4th tier of US soccer is notable. Giant Snowman 09:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
- Fourth tier in England is notable. It's not in the US. Second tier barely achieves recognition in the US. Even if it were, this team is not. Please proved RSes that this team is notable. Finally, this team plays in Canada. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 16:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep- this nomination makes no sense. This is the first level of soccer in North America that isn't fully professional. Players at this level are arguably shouldn't have articles. But teams? The last AFD was pretty clear. Nfitz ( talk) 20:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply
- Closing admin: Please note that the arguments in favour of keeping do not use any guidelines or polices. The team does not have any reliable sources. being a member of a notable league does not make the team any more notable than being a non-notable band on a notable record label. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 04:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep - The applicable notability standard for sports teams (and all other organizations) are WP:ORG and WP:GNG, which this subject easily satisfies with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources in the western Canadian media. Here's a sample: [42]; there are so many articles from the Canadian media, I'm not even going to bother linking individual examples. Anyone interested can feel free to sort through the Google results. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 22:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:20, 1 September 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:SNOW. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 17:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

K-W United FC

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

Contested PROD. Fails notability criteria. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep. Just as notable as the other teams in its league, none of which seem to have been nominated for deletion; is the current reigning league champion. Radagast ( talk) 18:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
- They are not notable. There are no sources and I could find none. You must prove that they are notable, not simply pronounce it. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 04:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 23:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep - playing in the 4th tier of US soccer is notable. Giant Snowman 09:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
- Fourth tier in England is notable. It's not in the US. Second tier barely achieves recognition in the US. Even if it were, this team is not. Please proved RSes that this team is notable. Also, this team plays in Canada, not the US. Are you sure you know what you're discussing here? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 16:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep. Every team in this league is notable.-- Coppercanuck ( talk) 12:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep- this nomination makes no sense in light of the clear consensus in previous attempts of deletions of Canadian USPDL teams. This is the first level of soccer in North America that isn't fully professional. Players at this level are arguably shouldn't have articles. But teams? Teams at this level easily meet WP:GNG with numerous examples, such as [43]. Nfitz ( talk) 20:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply
- Closing admin: Please note that the arguments in favour of keeping do not use any guidelines or polices. The team does not have any reliable sources. being a member of a notable league does not make the team any more notable than being a non-notable band on a notable record label. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 04:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  - Closing admin. Please note that this user has a history of nominating teams in this league for deletion, despite precedent-setting near-unanimous rejection. Please also note that the claim that the claim that no guideline or policy has been used in favour of keeping is false, as WP:GNG is a guideline that was used in favour of keeping the article. Nfitz ( talk) 23:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    - I have a history of nominating a number of non-notable subjects for deletion. The fact that this team is not notable while the league currently meets notability guidelines should not be conflated. If you can't keep classes and their objects separate, it's time to stop editing Nfitz. That seems to be the case for you and several other editors here. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 04:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:18, 1 September 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:SNOW. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 17:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Forest City London

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

Contested PROD. Fails notability criteria. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep. As notable as other teams in its division/league. Radagast ( talk) 00:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
- They are not notable. There are no sources and I could find none. You must prove that they are notable, not simply pronounce it. Walter Görlitz ( talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 23:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 23:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep - playing in the 4th tier of US soccer is notable. Giant Snowman 09:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
- Fourth tier in England is notable. It's not in the US. Second tier barely achieves recognition in the US. Even if it were, this team is not. Please proved RSes that this team is notable. Also, this team plays in Canada, not the US. You clearly do not understand the subject we're discussing. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 16:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep Nominator says he can not find any sources on the subject; here's a couple from a very quick Google search: [44], [45]. Looking at Premier Development League#Current clubs, every other club in that league has an article; I don't see why Forest City London should be any different. The nominator claims the article "Fails notability criteria"; what notability criteria are these? Mattythewhite ( talk) 22:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
- One paragraph is considered to be fulfilling RS? The others are blogs!
Keep- this nomination makes no sense in light of the clear consensus in previous attempts of deletions of Canadian USPDL teams. This is the first level of soccer in North America that isn't fully professional. Players at this level are arguably shouldn't have articles. But teams? Nfitz ( talk) 20:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply
- Closing admin: Please note that the arguments in favour of keeping do not use any guidelines or polices. The team does not have any reliable sources. being a member of a notable league does not make the team any more notable than being a non-notable band on a notable record label. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 04:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  - Closing admin. Please note that User:Walter Görlitz has a history of nominating teams in this league for deletion, despite precedent-setting near-unanimous rejection. Please also note reliable sources such as [46], [47], [48]. Nfitz ( talk) 23:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    - I have a history of nominating a number of non-notable subjects for deletion. The fact that this team is not notable while the league currently meets notability guidelines should not be conflated. If you can't keep classes and their objects separate, it's time to stop editing Nfitz. That seems to be the case for you and several other editors here. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 03:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep. As Nfitz says, while we may not deem players notable because they played for this club, the club itself, like other clubs at this level, is sufficiently notable for an article. In addition to the reasons already stated, sources are apparent in basic searches, for example see the GNews and Google searches for <"FC London" Ontario> (links above).-- Arxiloxos ( talk) 16:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:17, 1 September 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 G12 by Bbb23. ( non-admin closure) NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 04:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Kalderetang Bibi

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

Nonsense, but not enough so for Speedy. Not enough content to keep. Jerod Lycett ( talk) 04:22, 28 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. Courcelles ( talk) 01:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Eric Cheng Kam Chung

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

I actually tagged this in August 2011 and it has gotten no improvement since and has only attracted more tags and issues. Based by this information, Chinese Wiki (which appears symmetrical) and my searches found nothing to suggest improvement and I somewhat doubt he's notable in China. I doubt, by any chance, his companies are notable although there are no articles for any of them and I'm not sure of the weight of his awards. Pinging fellow taggers @ DoctorKubla, Boleyn, AdventurousSquirrel, and Wgolf:. SwisterTwister talk 04:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete if his notability cannot be verified. This is an unref blp, which despite lots of editors looking at over the years, remains unreferenced and with no proof of notability. Boleyn ( talk) 15:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete: surely not notable.-- Human3015 ^{Send WikiLove} 05:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - Failed the WP:BIO. STSC ( talk) 17:11, 28 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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 03:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply

8Legged Entertainment

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

My searches found nothing to suggest this orphaned article has good coverage (not even minimally), searches here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 22:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 05:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 ( talk) 04:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - I found this [49] but it is simply a brief mention in a snippet about the founder. Nothing else I found would be considered reliable enough to establish notability. -- TTTommy111 ( talk) 05:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - It looks like notability just can't be established. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 05:24, 28 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) 17:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Juanita Baranco

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

My searches found nothing to suggest improvement and better notability and although I found a plethora of results to confirm her existence and local recognition, here, here, here, here and here, there's nothing to transfer improvement here (COIs don't concern me as much sometimes because they are often well intentioned edits, unless they are blatantly of concern but this was started by subject and nothing else has changed since). SwisterTwister talk 20:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 05:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 05:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 05:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 ( talk) 04:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep: She is listed as Georgia's 100 most influential Women for 2015 along with Rosalynn Carter. Sounds notable to me. Article needs improvement. I'll see what I can add. I have access to databases tomorrow. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 03:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment I did a little bit of research and found that she made a significant difference in education and she's been written up as a major focus in many different journals. She is also a black woman who has made a difference in Georgia, both for students and in the business community. I think she's a keeper, but her article needs a lot of copyedit. I'm too tired to do that now. :) Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 03:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep Why was this even nominated instead of just being improved? Even the nominator confirms there are a "plethora" of sources to confirm notability. Notability is not required to be national or international. Sources are required to be lasting and significant. If that is within her local community, it makes it no less significant. This climate of tagging files for deletion, rather than evaluating files or getting someone else to fix issues rather than fixing them oneself, really needs to be reevaluated. [50], [51], [52] — Preceding unsigned comment added by SusunW ( talk • contribs)

Keep: Yet another case of WP:DONOTDEMOLISH, article needs work, but notability quite adequate. Montanabw ^(talk) 04:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep: clearly notable. Ogress _smash! 16:31, 1 September 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 Ungrateful (album). The consensus is that the subject is not notable and supports Walter Görlitz's original redirect action. ( non-admin closure) Mz7 ( talk) 02:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply

You're Insane

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

Contested Speedy. Clearly fails any form of notability criteria: WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. I searched and found nothing to help support it either. The query above needs "Escape the Fate" to be added. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 04:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment. Might be worth redirecting to the album. Definitely doesn't merit an article - an album track made available for download to people who pre-ordered the album, is just an album track, not a 'digital single'. -- Michig ( talk) 07:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
- I tried turning it into a redirect, but the article creator objected. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 13:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment. I thought the move was a little too pre-emptive and wanted discussion first. I at first saw the reason it was redirected for being that it never charted, information on Escape the Fate's discography said otherwise, and had some decent size to it when it was redirected. So I re-created it thinking it was wrongly redirected. After I took a look at the sources for the positions, Billboard seemed to have erased it from its records. I checked for other sources. A couple articles claim it had peaked in the top twenty or thirty of Mainstream Rock charts, but I couldn't find a specific position to match the 27 on the discography. I was unsure what to do with this article at this point. Also, not that this matters much, but it was a radio single as well, not just an album track. ;) DannyMusicEditor ( talk) 17:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 23:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Redirect - Plausible search term considering it was released prior to the album and received radio play to some capacity, but there's not enough sourcing, or even content, worthy of having its own article. Sergecross73 msg me 19:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Redirect is fine. Drmies ( talk) 19:46, 1 September 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 01:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Johannes Cabal the Detective

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

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability standards. Sourced only to the author's web site and a wiki-like site which allows user-submitted content. (PROD was removed without any explanation.) The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 14:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 04:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep, as article meets WP:NBOOK and now has plenty of reliable sources thanks to Tokyogirl79. Coolabahapple ( talk) 17:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 ( talk) 03:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep passes WP:NBOOK, several reviews have been added Kraxler ( talk) 17:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep as per User:Coolabahapple. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:31, 2 September 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. Courcelles ( talk) 01:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Scoopler

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

The article appears to fail WP:WEB in that the sole references are both are from a single tech blog. It has been tagged for notability since June 2013, with no substantial changes/improvements undertaken since then. It was also put forward for an AfD in June 2013 but the tag was removed on the basis that the nominator did not supply a reason. The actual search engine only appeared to operate for two years (between 2009-2011) and there doesn't appear to be any demonstration of its notability. Dan arndt ( talk) 03:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 23:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 23:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete probably because there's simply not much about this with this, this, this and this being the best results. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - Per Nom CerealKillerYum ( talk) 14:14, 3 September 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. Courcelles ( talk) 01:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Task Force Power Afghanistan

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

Extremely irrelevant piece of non-notable information. Went to the PDF cited [53], and couldn't find "Task Force Power" or "FRAGO 10-213" when I ran a search. Might be made up as a hoax. Jcmcc ( Talk) 03:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Weak Delete - Well, it's not a hoax. "Task Force Power" is an actual military project, and it's mentioned by defense.gov: {Exp Federal Inc., Chicago, Illinois, was awarded an $8,017,418 firm-fixed-price contract with options to meet the requirements of the congressionally mandated electrical safety program, “Task Force Power.” Work will be performed in Afghanistan with an estimated completion date of March 20, 2017.} More details about it are here. However, the fact still seems clear that this is just one military project out of many that has no significant notability. So, while I have no strong feelings on this, I recommend deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 05:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 23:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete: I couldn't find much in the way of coverage to indicate it satisfies the GNG, except for what has been mentioned above and one or two other minor passing mentions (not all reliable sources, though). In this regard, I'd say it should probably be deleted, but I would be amenable to maybe including it in a parent article, if a suitable one could be identified. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 03:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - not a hoax but lacks the req'd coverage to justify its own article per WP:GNG. I agree that the information that is available might be usable in another article per AR's comment. Anotherclown ( talk) 02:38, 4 September 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. — Spaceman Spiff 18:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Ventom Network India

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

Delete: This is perhaps a very tricky AfD nomination with 97 references cited. I am still making this bold AfD nominating due 1) This is completely written as advertisement 2) Most of the references cited are either self-published, blogs, paid advertisement or even e-commerce sites c) This company is not notable otherwise and certainly not a "Conglomerate" as termed in the article. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete for now as the article, whether intended or not, looks more like a personal and promotional page and the sources are not enough weight and my searches found much less, with this being the best I found. Initially, I was going to wait until more familiar users commented but I think it's clear here. SwisterTwister talk 17:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment: Has anyone thought to try to clean up its tone, or is deletion thought to be the only possible option??? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment. Since when are we responsible for cleaning up advertisements? Just a thought. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 19:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Well, at times, if the article is still salvageable and I've almost nominated some articles until I found enough to improve it. However, this one still has sourcing issues. SwisterTwister talk 19:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment. You have a point SwisterTwister but then in the same lines my opinion is that this is not salvageable for now. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 19:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Nominator: In response to above, when anyone deigns to edit Wikipedia and makes a choice to evaluate the work of others, they never ever "have" to improve anything... but please take a look at WP:SEP and understand that while you might choose to not, I personally choose to improve Wikipedia by improving articles claimed unsavable by someone else. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Maybe someone can boil down the article and see if anything worthwhile remains? – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Strong Delete Unambiguous advertising-- . Shlok _{talk .} 11:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete. It's a spam that uses WP:REFFLOOD to mask its nature ( Wikipedia:Masking the lack of notability). If anyone can point out how his meets WP:NCOMPANY, ping me here. I don't see any reliable refs. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 04:03, 4 September 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. Sandstein 08:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

GiftCards.com

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

I proposed WP:AfD, the article/company seems non- notable has WP:COI editing (by possibly at least two/only (that is not those reverting or putting banners in) "contributors", that do not edit ([m]any) other pages), copyvio. Article/company made too look important, by linking to news articles (the sources are real, notable (usually WP:RS), news sources, still newspapers link in this banner in this page brings this result: "No results found for "GiftCards.com" site:news.google.com/newspapers."), discussion general issues (gift cards [companies]), this one not the main/only one. Didn't look at all refs, another guy did, said would support AfD. See talk page for more. Not sure if AfD or even just WP:PROD is appropriate, as I proposed AfD, I'm ok, with a speedier process if others deem appropriate and it is allowed to change (w/my permission).

Delete

Clear Might not be the right place for this (please if anyone knows where to bring up, do, possibly by copying/moving my text here): Separately (I do not know the process) I propose banning the COI editors if not already done (and their IP addresses, or whatever is done), as a violation of policy (not declaring COI, and they seem not be independent editors, that should have possibly known better than to edit in this way). comp.arch ( talk) 11:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 20. — ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply

delete - The references either appear to be invalid, pointing to affiliated sites, or reprints(?) of press releases. I don't see evidence of notability. The purpose of the current article appears to be promotion of the company. Rwessel ( talk) 17:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete. Cleaar PR for a not yet notable company. DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Why not remove the broken links and copyrighted information, but keep the page? I apologize and was simply trying to bring the page current. What can be done to keep the page?

Here are newspaper sources to show GiftCards.com is notable:

Here are sources to show that the gift card industry is notable:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.177.2 ( talk • contribs) 17:57, 24 August 2015‎ (UTC) reply

Fixing the copyright issues and providing good references is an excellent idea. If the article is improved sufficiently, this AfD will become moot. Rwessel ( talk) 03:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Rwessel Is this now moot? I see it was relisted but not sure what else can be done other than stubifying it. There are so many broken comments here it is hard to keep track of everything. -- TTTommy111 ( talk) 04:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

This is a jumbled mess, I've added my comment at the bottom. Rwessel ( talk) 06:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Content without copyright issues and good references have been provided on the talk page. Justinfritz ( talk) 16:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep - According to the article in the BBC [54], it is the largest gift card retailer in the world. That would be notable. There are additional references that support its notability like [55], [56], and [57]. The content that is promotional can be removed. In fact, I will do that now. But the company itself is not new and clearly meets WP:GNG. -- TTTommy111 ( talk) 16:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment - There are some SPA issues which tells me that some of the content was probably created without fully understanding how to write in an encyclopedia tone.-- TTTommy111 ( talk) 16:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment - I stripped it to bare bones and rewrote what was left. This should take care of the promotional tone and copyvio issues. For anyone new who is trying to edit the article, especially those with a COI, I strongly encourage that you become more than familiar with Wikipedia guidelines prior to.-- TTTommy111 ( talk) 16:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Here are more 3rd party sources that point to GiftCards.com's notability:
Selling 6 million gift cards: http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/blog/morning-edition/2015/02/giftcards-com-sells-6-millionth-gift-card.html

Entrepreneur magazine, You Gift We Gift: http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/235585

Inc. 5000, mentioned as prominent brand along side Yelp & Facebook: http://www.cnbc.com/id/48782069

Pittsburgh Business Ethics Awards honors GiftCards.com: http://triblive.com/business/headlines/7850044-74/company-ethics-gift

Home to Shelly Hunter (aka GiftCard Girlffriend) who keeps a Chapter 11 Watchlist for company's whose gift cards are about to go bankrupt: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/05/31/gift-card-retailer-bankruptcies-dots-family-christian-stores/28155839/

Keep per the list of all references above. The article is short and, perhaps, not ideal, but it needs to be revamped, not deleted. There are plenty of reliable, independent, and verifiable sources out there for this one. Gargleafg ( talk) 22:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Waffle While the copyright issues appear to be resolved, I'm not fully convinced that the sources establish notability. Of the three in the article, only the BBC one comes close (the others are a company web site and some sort of directory entry), and that does a better job of establishing the notability of Mr. Wolfe than the company. Of the ones listed above by 71.112.177.2, only the TribLive, Fortune and Post-Gazette ones are plausibly valid (the others just include GiftCards.com in a list). Of those, the Fortune one appears also appears to be more of a Wolfe hagiography (like the BBC reference), and the other two feel more like reprinted or thinly reworked company press releases or company histories than "real" journalism, but that's clearly a judgement call (although in the case of the Post-Gazette a local paper writing a puff piece about a local company is hardly uncommon). Rwessel ( talk) 06:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

- I didn't initiate the AfD only because [of copyvio, but because of] non-notabililty. Now, I see the BBC article (not sure it changes much, but will accept either decision). At least I learned (English is not my native language) a new word " hagiography": "is a biography of a saint or an ecclesiastical leader." comp.arch ( talk) 11:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Well, that *is* the original meaning. In modern usage (and in this case), it's usually sense 4 of wikt:hagiography (as described in the third paragraph of hagiography), less commonly sense 3, and the (actual) religious usage is fairly rare. Rwessel ( talk) 21:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep: If this is here because of a copyright violation, I do not see a reason to continue the debate as it was taken to a stub. If it is here because of notability, not sure why as there are plenty of references (see Google news – [58]), including this on Bloomberg TV, plus this, this, this, this and this. These are surely multiple sources, seeming reliable and independent of the subject, thus making the subject compliant with WP:GNG (IMHO). Hansi667 (Neighbor Of The Beast) ^{a penny for your thoughts?} 17:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep There are a decent amount of sources here. Largest gift card retailer probably counts for something. ~ EDDY ^{(
talk/
contribs)}~ 16:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment - I am going in to remove the old references and include the more reliable ones, at least the ones I feel are more reliable. If this is kept, I would recommend anyone contributing to it be non-promotional and include reliable sources to back up what they introduce into the page. -- TTTommy111 ( talk) 17:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Ryukyu Islands dispute

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

Ryk72 requested speedy deletion (CSD A10). But I think that this article shuld exist in wikipedia as seperated article. Ryukyu Islands dispute arose before than Senkaku Islands dispute. -- Skirtland ( talk) 13:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 13. — ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Speedy keep. Frivolous deletion request. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
- Delete. Convinced by the argument. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete; Merge relevant aspects to Senkaku Islands dispute. With respect to Altenmann, this is not a frivolous deletion request. The vast majority of the article as it stands is not supported by any reliable sources; it appears to consist largely of WP:OR, and to be a WP:POVFORK which contradicts aspects of the Ryukyu Islands & History of the Ryukyu Islands articles. All of the sources which are used to support aspects of the article are primarily about the Senkaku Islands dispute; none relate to a wider Ryukyu Islands dispute. Google searches for additional supporting sources are not fruitful. The topic does not appear to pass WP:GNG. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 16:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
- You must be kidding. Here is what source cited says: "Let's for now not discuss whether [the Ryukyus] belong to China, they were certainly China's tributary state," Luo said in an interview with China News Service. "I am not saying all former tributary states belong to China, but we can say with certainty that the Ryukyus do not belong to Japan," he added, " -- You may not like the article, but the dispute seems pretty much here. - üser:Altenmann >t 03:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

I assure editors that I am not "kidding". The source referred to is the New York Times [59]. Looking at the whole of the source, rather than a single quote, however, provides a different view of the content. We (quite reasonably) regard the NYT as a reliable source, but I could not in good faith assert that this source verifies anything more than an outburst of sentiment within China for a desire to strengthen a claim on the Senkaku Islands, by making a wider claim on the whole of the Ryukyus - it certainly does not verify that there is a legitimate international dispute over these islands.

The NYT article clearly attributes the quote as a hawkish Chinese military official argued that the Japanese did not have sovereignty over the Ryukyu Islands because its inhabitants paid tribute to Chinese emperors hundreds of years before they started doing so to Japan. Looking into this and the Guardian source [60], shows that the quote traces back to the South China Morning Post [61] (the Guardian explicitly so), which is clearly a biased source. There is nothing in the NYT & Guardian sources, nor any of the others, to indicate that this is anything more than another shot in the Senkaku Islands dispute; which is referenced by each of the sources.

As with all others, I neither like nor dislike this Wikipedia article, I just do not agree that it meets the standards for inclusion as a separate article. The claims of military hawks and State newspapers are clearly noteworthy as part of the Senkaku Islands dispute, but they are not notable enough for their own article.

In short, I am not saying that we should exclude this information; simply that we should include it in context, as part of the Senkaku Islands dispute, in the same way that the sources regard it. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 05:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

i agree with your logic, but in this case "merge" option precludes "delete" due to our copyright policy. - üser:Altenmann >t

Hi Altenmann, I agree with the complications around the copyright policy, but believe that it would be possible for us to both comply with policy and delete. The Beginnings section of the article is largely unsourced or poorly (non-RS) sourced; overlaps the contents of the Ryukyu Islands & History of the Ryukyu Islands articles (WP:POVFORKingly so to a large extent) - there is little to no encyclopedic content in this section, and I believe it can be safely deleted.

New encyclopedic content does indeed exist in the 2010s section, but the text of this is limited to In 2010s, China questions Japan's sovereignty of Ryukyu Islands.; an incomplete, somewhat inaccurate reflection of the 3 RSes used for this section - the sources used here can be mined for a fuller, expanded coverage, at the Senkaku Islands dispute article, without relying on copying this sentence verbatim - I believe this would satisfy the copyright concerns. I welcome your thoughts on this potential approach. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

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

Comment - This discussion should be closed immediately because user Skirtland is not the nominator for the deletion. STSC ( talk) 11:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi STSC, W.r.t this question, please see WP:NOTBURO. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 03:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 ^Talk 15:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 03:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete and probably don't redirect it. No evidence has been provided that there is any real-world dispute, i.e. a claim seriously advanced by the Chinese government or something of that sort. — innotata 04:08, 28 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. Courcelles ( talk) 01:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Hedi El Ayoubi

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

I'm questioning whether he's independently notable as although he's been associated with well known and notable films, there's not much for him. My searches found a few results such as a Variety review here and here. SwisterTwister talk 02:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete per WP:OUTCOMES, WP:MILL, and WP:NOTINHERITED. We almost always delete BLPs of producers and assistant directors, because they almost always fail WP:CREATIVE as their contributions are not notable by themselves. Bearian ( talk) 16:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom and above editors. Using the search engines turned up mentions, but nothing to rise to the level of meeting the notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:39, 4 September 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. A single article about a mayoral race in a small suburb is not sufficnet to even come close to establishing notability. Courcelles ( talk) 01:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Dave Black (politician)

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

Former mayor of Papillion, Nebraska, an Omaha suburb with population 19,000. Searching Google and Google News for ("dave black" papillion) turned up no detailed coverage. Searching the online archives of the Omaha World-Herald for ("dave black") also turned up no detailed coverage. As the mayor of a fairly small city, who's apparently received no significant press coverage, Black appears to fail the general notability standards and those specifically laid out at WP:POLITICIAN. Ammodramus ( talk) 01:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete: as non-notable politician; fails GNG. Quis separabit? 01:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 02:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 02:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - Notability doesn't seem established. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 02:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN as a mayor of a city of less than 20,000 people, with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Smalltown mayor with no substantive reliable source coverage shown; the one non-primary source here just demonstrates that he exists, which is not enough to get a smalltown mayor into Wikipedia in and of itself. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 16:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep. It's true that the article had not a lot of coverage, and the article was outdated and had wrong facts. I have just fixed and updated the article with the fact that he is still Mayor, and was re-elected in 2014, with this source from the Omaha World-Herald. Now, the Omaha World-Herald is the primary daily newspaper in Nebraska – that sounds like substantive coverage to me. SuperCarnivore591 ( talk) 02:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete smalltown mayor, fails WP:NPOL, coverage in a metro paper which covers his hometown remains local, and is not "significant" as required by GNG Kraxler ( talk) 01:28, 5 September 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. Jujutacular ( talk) 04:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply

1901 Census of the North-Western Provinces and Oudh

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

This is a transcription of a primary source that is known to be unreliable. It includes links to numerous other articles that may or may not in fact be the communities designated in the census. Basically, it is verifiable only due to a failure to comply with WP:RS. Without context, and with the links, it is effectively useless. A similar article - 1901 Census of Rajputana - was recently deleted for the same reasons.

For background relating to the utility of this type of article, please note Census of India prior to independence. Sitush ( talk) 20:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep This is a brief summary of key data, not a transcript. Tho less reliable than more modern censuses, this was a landmark of the period, and the data is the best available.I think objections to it tend to be political, based on objections to the misclassification or miscounting of one or another group. The 19th and early 20th British administrative and academic work on India has been much objected to nowadays, for perfectly understandable reasons,but thisis an encyclopedia that covers all periods. That a particular study of major importance at the time has its problems is no reason not to include it. We cover the entire historical record of knowledge. DGG ( talk ) 07:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

DGG, we have been through this before. It seems that every time you oppose this sort of thing relating to India, you end up being on the wrong "side" of consensus. Your inclusionism is applaudable but you just do not get it in this particular subject area. The information is wrong: it was wrong then and it is wrong now. It is not encyclopaedic to include incorrect data, just as it is not encyclopaedic to mislead people into believing that our article X is synonymous with the mention in the census etc. - Sitush ( talk) 07:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Yes we've been through this before, and we will again, as long as you seek to remove references to information that was significant in the past. This is an encycopedia, and includes history. Whether I am an inclusionist depends on the topic: historically important surveys are appropriate content. ~The problem of people assuming it still valid can be solved by adding an introduction or criticism section. Question: are you aware of better sources for data of that time period? DGG ( talk )

Proven incorrect information is not appropriate content except in the most extraordinary circumstances. The "extraordinary" are, basically, highly specific fringe theories that are discussed extensively and in this instance the connection is so remote as to be ridiculous. Adding an introduction etc is not a solution and would become immensely repetitive. This is an abstract/transcript of data that is known to be utter rubbish, sorry. If we allow it then we should allow transcription of every census (primary source) data for every area that has ever been subject to any sort of census ... and every political poll ever made, etc. It is utter madness and not at all befitting of an encyclopaedia. Anyone with experience who really thinks this thing adds value needs their head seeing to. However, I acknowledge that the alternate also applies, ie: I need my head seeing to even arguing againt this inclusionist nonsense and should perhaps walk away because this project is obviously doomed if such ideas prevail.

We have a half-decent article linked in my rationale that explains the problems and, at a pinch, this article could be redirected to it. However, to do that job properly would require the creation of maybe 500 redirects and drifts into the stupid morass of retention arguments that often occurs at RfD, where the most tenuous connections are deemed to be valid even though the likelihood of use is minimal. DGG, please look at the contributions of the article creator and let them continue to reproduce whatever nonsense they choose elsewhere on the web. I'm fed up of wasting my time here, trying to counter the POV-pushers, the nationalists, the glorifiers and, yes, those who think just about anything that exists as a coherent sentence is justifiable. I'm gone, I think - it is increasingly difficult for me to handle this mess, especially when so-called experienced and "clever" people are so far apart from me.

There are bugger-all admins willing to take on the Indic stuff and, frankly, the experience is not helped by admins (arbs, even) who really are clueless about it. - Sitush ( talk) 00:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 ^Talk 12:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete, but not because the data is wrong (we have many articles about ideas that were once thought correct but are simply wrong). Rather, because WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. It is reasonable to discuss major national censuses. This isn't; it's one regional component of the 1901 Census of India. By comparison, we have an article about the 2010 United States Census, but I don't think anyone would seriously argue in favor of by-state sub-articles that serve only as stat-table dumping grounds ( 2010 Texas Census is thankfully red). I wouldn't entirely be opposed to individual articles, such as 1901 Census of India (currently a redirect) on the pre-Independence Indian censuses, citing the aggregate "data" as well as the reliable modern sources that explain why those numbers are untrustworthy (at best). But that still doesn't justify regional articles like this one. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 15:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep. We should not misapply WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. This is not so far from the canonical example of a "necessary" statistics table in that very policy, Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012. It is of historical and educational value, and is likely to be useful to anyone who needs this information as it represents the data faithfully in a much more readable format. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 04:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 23:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete: Per nom.-- Human3015 ^{Send WikiLove} 23:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep Of historical importance. This is not about WP:RS. AusLondonder ( talk) 18:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Do what? Everything on Wikipedia is about reliable sources. - Sitush ( talk) 18:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

You are misapplying WP:RS. Are you saying Wikipedia should not include articles about factually questionable/wrong topics? For example Blood libel, Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories or Spring-Heeled Jack? An encyclopaedia is time immemorial. AusLondonder ( talk) 06:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply

No, that is not what I am saying. The article doesn't even say that the stuff is factually incorrect because the creator (long since gone) was well-known for a total inability to judge sources or even read around topics: they merely transcribed. We do have a reliably sourced article that explains the difficulties with all the Raj censuses - Census of India prior to independence - and this article is misleading in the extreme because it lacks such sources. Most reliable sources that discuss Raj censuses do so as a collective, not by examining just one particular census. We require that even fringe topics are reliably sourced, we are not a collection of statistics, and we not are Wikisource. - Sitush ( talk) 08:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. If this census, or part of one, was indeed of historical importance, I'd expect that to be explained and sourced in the article. As it is, though, we only have a bare table of statistics, which is indeed what we are WP:NOT for. Sandstein 07:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. At best this deserves a mention (sentence or two) in an article about the nation's census that year, if such a page existed. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:04, 5 September 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. ( NPASR) ( non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (confer) @ 16:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Scott Mead

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

I can't find any substantial coverage of the subject in RS. The article states he is a photographer but this coverage in the low-quality Evening Standard was the best I could find. (Note that a different Scott Mead is more notable as a photographer [62]). Similarly I can only find brief mentions of his career at Goldman Sachs e.g. in The FT or in relation to his PA stealing from him [63] [64]. Unless there are sources that I haven't been able to find WP:BIO isn't met. SmartSE ( talk) 20:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment: SmartSE's nomination is excellent and I can't see any fault in it. The only reason I have for hesitating to agree with a call for deletion is a feeling that somebody might wonder just who are these somewhat shadowy names that pop up as trustees of The Photographers' Gallery, etc. Because the author of the excellent Anatomy of Britain is now dead, publication of Son of Who Runs This Place? The Anatomy of Britain a Bit Further into the 21st Century seems unlikely. I'm not certain that Wikipedia should be doing this job, but I'd be reassured if I knew that some website somewhere was doing it. -- Hoary ( talk) 23:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
- Comment: Hi SmartSE and Hoary,I edited this entry in the past, and saw it's considered for deletion now for being written in a promotional style etc. So I made some edits to try to improve it. Can you let me know what you think please? BenSalo ( talk) 14:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  - The promotional tone is pretty irrelevant if he isn't notable, which is what this discussion is about. As the note I left on your talk page notes, if you are being paid to edit the article then you must disclose this, including who your employer is. SmartSE ( talk) 14:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 ^Talk 12:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 28 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. Courcelles ( talk) 01:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Paula Rothermel

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

Do not believe she is notable, not actually mentioned in a lot of references mentioned in the article, seems like the subject has written the article about herself for self-promotion Sheroddy ( talk) 01:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Speedy keep, speedy close. No substantive argument or analysis advanced in support of deletion. Nominator seems to be engaging in a disturbingly Qwortyesque deletion jihad. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 18:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete, promotional piece with obvious COI, no secondary references, just of bunch of primary sources often written by the same subject. -- Cavarrone 09:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. I don't think the society fellowships listed here are selective enough to count for WP:PROF#C3, and her work is not heavily cited enough for #C1. The article appears to be making a case instead for #C7 (non-academic impact of academic work) but if primary sources are all that can be found then the case is too weak. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom and David Eppstein - searches simply don't turn up enough for her to pass WP:GNG or WP:PROF. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to Longevity claims. Courcelles ( talk) 01:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Bernando LaPallo

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

Non-notable individual. Simply being past 110 isn't enough for notability and none of the references to the book are reliable sources. This lazy local news segment giving the age claim and only reliable sources are the Daily Mail calling him a fraud and the New York name-drop from his daughter's bio. And before we bring out the World's Oldest People project crowd, the GRG puts it as incomplete or fraud here but that's authored by "L Stephen Coles, Self-Appointed Custodian for the Libraries of Civilization" so other than the AP, we barely have enough for an article calling him a notable pretender supercentarian. Ricky81682 ( talk) 01:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 02:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 02:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 02:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 02:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Maybe delete but mention elsewhere such as the list of supercenterians (or at least believed ones) as my searches such as this, this and this, there's not much aside from that and, considering, this has stayed since September 2010, you've expected more by now including news coverage. Pinging past editors Boleyn, Ollie231213, TheJJJunk (although it seems this one is not very active) and Robofish. SwisterTwister talk 07:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Merge to Longevity claims. This article looks like a WP:BLP1E to me; he doesn't seem to meet the criteria for an independent article at present. However, I'd say 'merge' rather than 'delete' as given the nature of the article, he could easily become independently notable if he lives long enough, and the article can then be restored. Robofish ( talk) 20:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Merge to Longevity claims per Robofish. Ca2james ( talk) 18:24, 3 September 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. Courcelles ( talk) 01:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

DotTrace

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

Couldn't find any reliable source coverage apart from a couple of mentions in books. Sam Walton ( talk) 21:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 ( talk) 22:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 ( talk) 22:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Unfortunately delete as my searches found nothing good here, here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 ^Talk 12:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - as per nom and SwisterTwister. Searches do not give credence to notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:17, 4 September 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) 17:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Johannes Cabal the Necromancer

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

No evidence of notability. (Sourced only to the author's web site, a dead link, and a publishers' publicity site.) The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 10:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 11:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep. Actually appears to have been reviewed by at least a couple reliable sources. This review at The Zone (operated by genre book publisher Pigasus Press, complete with submissions guidelines and editorial oversight) offers a mixed opinion of the work. The review by the historically well-respected Kirkus Reviews is not at all positive. The book has been reviewed elsewhere as well; Fantasy Book Review was more positive, and Fantasy-Faction offered glowing praise. Both those reviews are bylined, but I'm not certain about the editorial control or overall reliability of either site; regardless, The Zone and Kirkus are clearly acceptable sources, and that gets us over the threshold. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 15:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep per above. It also looks like it was reviewed by SFX magazine per this link. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 28 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. Courcelles ( talk) 01:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

NZWF

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

Non-notable organisation. No independent refs. Nothing obvious in google. Stuartyeates ( talk) 09:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete -- I'm unable to find anything that would help this organisation meet WP:GNG. Will change my vote if others find some though. Doesn't help that this article is very much written in a promotional tone. Even if kept, will need a rewrite to be encyclopedic. -- Shudde ^talk 08:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - I'm seeing that this group has been discussed by blogs and the like, but I don't see the kind of reliable references that are needed. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 02:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment The NZ pro-wrestling scene seems to have dropped well into the background. If anything this article may worth a paragraph or sentence in Professional wrestling in New Zealand. This seems to apply to other articles such as New Zealand Wide Pro Wrestling as well. NealeFamily ( talk) 08:31, 28 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 and move to From Population Control to Reproductive Health. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 18:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

From pupulation control to reproductive health

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

Was dePRODed. Concern was: Written like a personal book review. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 09:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Strong keep, and yet consider WP:TNT. The article is in reprehensible condition, beginning right with the misspelled title. Needless to say, if kept, rename to From Population Control to Reproductive Health (with a redirect created that includes the subtitle). That said, this book has apparently received three separate reviews in peer-reviewed journals in the appropriate field, which is pretty much everything we want in evaluating notability for something of this nature.

Bose, Ashish (2006). "Book Reviews: From Population Control to Reproductive Health: Malthusian Arithmetic, Mohan Rao (SAGE Publications, New Delhi) 2004" (PDF). Indian Journal of Medical Research. 124: 213–214.
Padmadas, Sabu S. (2006). "Book review of: From Population Control to Reproductive Health: Malthusian Arithmetic by Mohan Rao". Population Studies. 60 (1): 116–118. doi: 10.1080/00324720500466034.
Simon-Kumar, Rachel (2005). "Reviewed Work: From Population Control to Reproductive Health: Malthusian Arithmetic by Mohan Rao". Social Scientist. 33 (3/4): 76–80. JSTOR 3518115.

It was also reviewed here in The Hindu, although obviously the scholarly sources are of greater weight for a book on medical topics, per WP:MEDRS. This is about the most-clearly-notable book I've ever commented about at AFD, but the content we have now is still startlingly poor. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 15:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep, but start over from scratch! Let's not move it until AfD is finished, WP:AFD. -- Djembayz ( talk) 00:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment: I've done some basic clean-up. It would be good to see other editors work on this: in particular, the whole article currently seems to be just an overall outline of the book, citing the book itself as reference, and as no other sources are cited, it currently appears to fail the requirement for providing multiple independent reliable sources. Would it be possible to have some material added that cites the sources given above, and less emphasis on a point-by-point summary of the book? (Also: for those looking for the book itself, it's ISBN 9780761932697 ). -- The Anome ( talk) 08:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment: I've now chopped out 90% of the article to keep only the very basics, and cited the first and last of the sources above. The second appears to be behind a paywall, so I don't have access to it. Even now, there is still uncited material in the article: it would be good if other editors could contribute to the cleanup. -- The Anome ( talk) 09:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment. Whatever happens with this article, copyediting is unlikely to be needed. I removed the tag.-- DThomsen8 ( talk) 23:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep - Given the sources available (including those linked above), it seems consensus for notability already exists. With the work done to it since nomination, WP:TNT isn't necessary. It does certainly need to be renamed, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:19, 31 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) 18:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Desperate Housewives Africa

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

The article doesn't seem to be notable. All references are to a single page is "ebonylifetv.com". In addition to texts with copyright, since where I understand the creator of the article does not have permissions to copy text from other Web pages. The article is very short. Philip J Fry • ( talk) 06:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep subject of the article meets WP:GNG. I have no idea of how the nominator fail to see Bella Naija, The Guardian News, this, Thisday Newspaper, The Guardian News, this, Pulse Nigeria, New Vision, allAfrica, Business World, Ghana web, Colorlines Magazine, BET, Sydney morning herald, Vanguard News and Thisday News to mention few. Nominator, it seemed to me that you obviously ignored WP:BEFORE. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep I also think the nominator completely ignored the references.The show is notable and very popular in Nigeria.The page was recently created and is still under construction;just check on its progress by now and their are a number of references.I can't just get what the Nominator was trying to achieve.The article meets WP:GNG. ~nyanchy 12:39, 31 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. ( NPASR) ( non-admin closure) Rcsprinter¹²³ (discuss) @ 16:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Showtime (brand)

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

Purely original research, as most of these companies/services are linked in name only, and their owners are completely unrelated – not a unified "brand" as claimed in the article's title. The Showtime disambiguation page already lists these services adequately. -- Wikipedical ( talk) 03:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 06:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 28 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. A soft delete, but relisting this again is unlikely to matter Courcelles ( talk) 01:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

MyWorkSearch

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

This orphaned article is another case of no good coverage, not even minimally, despite several searches including here, here, here and here. Pinging tagger Philafrenzy for comment. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 11:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. I tried Google and Google News searches for (myworksearch), without quotes. This yielded a 2010 piece in the Telegraph, cited in the article, with lots of quotes from the company's founder but very little else of use. This suggests that the company might meet notability standards, but isn't sufficient to establish notability in the absence of other sources, which I wasn't able to find.

The article states that the company had won "the 2010 LinkedIn European Business Awards Startup category", and if there'd been independent coverage of this, it might've conferred notability. However, Google and Google News searches for (linkedin european business awards) turned up no evidence that these had been covered by independent media. The article provides what purports to be a citation for this award, but it redirects to a Czech-language piece that makes no mention of LinkedIn or MyWorkSearch. Nothing to establish notability there. — Ammodramus ( talk) 14:16, 30 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. Courcelles ( talk) 01:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

The Majithia Family

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

Fails WP:GNG as far as I can tell. Sources in article are primary or dead links. Individual people might be notable but notability is not inherited on a familial level. Nothing particularly notable about the family in general is found. WP:NOTINHERITED Savonneux ( talk) 05:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. &mdash″; JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete This article came about because Bikram Singh Majithia was protected and the various socks couldn't edit that to add all sorts of promotional content, and have found that opportunity here. The individuals are clearly notable, but not as a family, that's how the third party coverage is. — Spaceman Spiff 18:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete per nomination. Notability of some individuals is undisputed. But unreasonable to pass it on to the whole family. Comment State Legislature elections are scheduled in Jan 2017 in Punjab, and this article is writte in preparation for elections by SPA. ChunnuBhai ( talk) 20:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete as per nom and above editors. Nothing in search engines to show this family meets notability requirements. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:05, 4 September 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. Courcelles ( talk) 01:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Olivier Meric

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

Personal advertisement for businessman fails WP:BIO. Coverage consists of press releases and brief mentions. Deleted from frWP at AFD here Vrac ( talk) 02:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete -Unable to find anything in the sources provided or in further searches that establishes notability per Wikipedia guidelines. ABF99 ( talk) 06:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - I agree with ABF99. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 03:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete as per nom. Tom Reedy ( talk) 20:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom and above editors. Searches returned nothing to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:58, 4 September 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. Courcelles ( talk) 01:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

AG Dolla

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

Delete: Fails WP:MUSBIO. # 1 BBC link is dead, NME does not mention him. Other BBC link just mentions his name as a performer. Not notable at all. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete for now as my searches found nothing better than a few passing mentions. SwisterTwister talk 17:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete as per nom and above. Searches on News, Newspapers, Highbeam and JSTOR revealed nothing to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:00, 28 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. — Spaceman Spiff 18:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Shanky R.S Gupta

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

Delete: This is perhaps a very tricky AfD nomination with 50+ references cited. I am still making this bold AfD nominating due 1) This is completely written as advertisement 2) Most of the references cited are either self-published, blogs, paid advertisement or even e-commerce sites c) This person has made very tall claims in the article for "international awards" which could not be verified from credible sources. d) These seems to be a (probable) case of WP:COI. e) Person himself might not be that notable as claimed.

Appears to be a case of "smart advertising". I have also nominated this person's company ( Ventom Network India) for deletion. Kindly consider. Thanks Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete as well as there's equal sign of no improvement as with the company, with my searches finding nothing good (not even minimal third-party coverage). SwisterTwister talk 17:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete None of the sources are RS and I felt like I was going to get a virus looking at half of them. Most are passing mentions in any case.-- Savonneux ( talk) 02:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete: as non-notable per @Savonneux. Quis separabit? 12:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete as stated above. Snowsuit Wearer ( talk| contribs) 23:08, 28 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. — Spaceman Spiff 18:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Kousik Madhav

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

Recreated speedily deleted article. 2nd speedy declined. No indication, despite the claimed credits on films, that he actually meets either WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. Username of article creator and article subject's "Brainy" nickname suggests possible WP:COI, as well. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - I can see no notability here at all. Almost all the refs are IMDB which is not a reliable source and many (most? all ?) are Wikipedia entries which are unacceptable as refs. Re-reading this I cannot see where notability is supposed to lie. The poor English also doesn't help. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete as per nom and above editors. Searches on News, Newspapers, Highbeam and JSTOR reveal nothing to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete I've warned the author about removing AfD notices and posting fake results on the talk page. There's one heck of a lot of career here and very little on Google - and most of what's there is social media. If he's done all that, it's been in very minor positions within departments. Wikipedia isn't like the final credits of a film where the Deputy Sub Under Director of the Broom Cupboard gets a mention. (We probably wouldn't even consider the Director of the Broom Cupboard as notable.) This looks like a misunderstanding of Wikipedia, or desperation. Either way, it doesn't belong. Peridon ( talk) 17:31, 31 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.