The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Night of the Living Dead. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 05:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Marilyn Eastman

Marilyn Eastman (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete: as utterly non-notable minor actress. Quis separabit? 23:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Night of the Living Dead obviously as this is her best known work with searches here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 16:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Redirect per SwisterTwister. -- Hobbes Goodyear ( talk) 20:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 01:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC) reply

The Throwaways

The Throwaways (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

The band doesn't appear to be notable. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 ( talk) 23:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Probably keepable if we can source, they were on two notable indie labels. But proper sourcing would require access to contemporary paper, as they're in that non-web void just before history started in 1995 - David Gerard ( talk) 09:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC) Keep per Shaidar - David Gerard ( talk) 08:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep Two albums released, some sources now supplied. shaidar cuebiyar ( talk) 22:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep satisfies WP:GNG Dan arndt ( talk) 04:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian ( talk) 22:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. The article has been expanded, and sources have been added. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 13:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Failure of issue

Failure of issue (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

If, after 9 years, no-one has shown any inclination to expand this beyond a mere dictionary definition (which it is by the author's admission), then I think this should be deleted. Adam9007 ( talk) 23:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Snowball keep. Ludicrous nomination. No valid rationale for deletion. Clearly satisfies GNG with entire books on the subject. A valid stub is not a dictionary definition, and the nominator's rationale is wholly incompatible with BEFORE and our policies IMPERFECT, PRESERVE and ATD, since this clearly can be expanded beyond a definition. It is also possible to have an article that at first sight looks like a definition, but is really a restatement of rules of statute and case law. What such an article is really trying to say is that if a person does such and such, then certain legal consequences follow, but is saying it in an oblique way. So what this article is really trying to say is that, if there is a failure of issue, certain legal consquences follow (ie there are complicated rules for deciding who gets the property if there are no children). And that's no definition. In any event, it is possible for expressions, and definitions of expressions, to be notable as such, and again this is one of them. Terms of art typically are. James500 ( talk) 03:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I am not talking about notability. I am talking about the article being a mere definition (it reads like one to me and the author says it is) for 9 years. If you want to improve the article, go ahead, but in its current state, its hardly worthy of a separate article. Adam9007 ( talk) 04:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC) reply
    • "Needs expansion" has never been a valid grounds for deletion unless the article is actually incapable of being expanded (which is directly related to notability). The current state of the article, and the length of time it has been that way are an utter irrelevance. The editing and deletion policies (PRESERVE and ATD) make this very clear. AfD isn't cleanup. Nor is it an 'edit on demand' service. It is not appropriate to bring an AfD with the object of pressurising the volunteers at AfD into expanding an article that you want to see expanded but you simply cannot be bothered to work on yourself. You should withdraw this nomination and improve the article yourself (which should be easy), immediately. If you want to summon assistance, we have cleanup templates for that, we don't use AfD. James500 ( talk) 06:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC) reply
      • James500 is correct. We should not be focusing on the current state of the article, but rather on its potential, which the nominator should have considered per deletion procedure. Per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE, deletion (or the threat thereof) is not a means to improvement. So let's discuss only whether the article can be expanded beyond a definition. postdlf ( talk) 15:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. I searched and there is nothing beyond the simple definition - "someone who dies without having children." I certainly did not find "entire books on the subject" - where are those books? I would guess the reason it has not been expanded in nine years is because it is an archaic term and there is not much to expand on. At best it could be mentioned in property law but I don't see the need for its own article. WP:NOTDICTIONARY would apply here. —Мандичка ^YO 😜 07:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• You have obviously either not searched for sources at all or have completely failed to understand them. The entire book is Gifts Over of Property on Indeterminate Failure of Issue (1909). An example of coverage that is clearly not a simple definition is the passage that reads "An executory devise to take effect on an indefinite failure of issue is void for remoteness" (my emphasis) and so on and so forth in the article "failure of issue" in the 1891 edition of Black's Law Dictionary. That means, roughly, that if a will contains an instruction that says "give this piece of land to so and so if there is an indefinite failure of issue", that instruction cannot be lawfully carried out, and the will is invalid in that respect. Then it talks about how the courts apply techniques of interpretation (ie twist the words of the will to breaking point and beyond in order to hold that it does not refer to an indeterminate failure of issue) to avoid that result. That is no definition at all. It is talking about the validity of gifts of real property in wills that take effect on failure of issue. And there is plenty more where that came from. So, for example, the rule about failure of issue I mention above is explained in more detail, indeed at great length, in Bouvier's Institutes of American Law and this, to name but two of the many sources. We can easily write an article that is much more than a definition, by including an explanation of this rule, which is a purpose or use of the concept of "failure of issue". Judges and legislators generally don't create definitions that don't serve some purpose beyond mere definition. James500 ( talk) 10:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment. I would think all developed jurisdictions would have a body of law regarding what happens when someone dies without any heirs (does the property revert to the state, if so after how long, etc.). I don't remember seeing this term before so I don't know if it's the best title for that topic (is it archaic, is it only used in some jurisdictions), but it should be covered somewhere, if it isn't already. postdlf ( talk) 15:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• I have not determined the complete scope of this topic or micro checked the encyclopedia to see if this topic is covered elsewhere. It appears connected with the rule against perpetuities (see this and this), the interpretation/construction of wills (a notable topic that should certainly have an article: In "The Law of Real Property", Robert Megarry called this subject "vast") and intestacy. The concept is not archaic and has been used in the United Kingdom (see section 29 of the Wills Act 1837, which was still in force in 1993: Sweet and Maxwell's Property Statutes, 6th Ed; check the Statute Law Database, and you might find it is still in force today) as well as in America and is likely to be used in all jurisdictions that have what is known as Anglo-American law (ie present and former British colonies). My view is that there is more than enough material to justify a separate article. AfD isn't really for merger proposals, or a good place to discuss them, and unless someone proposes a specific target for merger, I think we should just keep the article. And the article's talk page would still be a much better place to discuss that, at which point I would normally urge a procedural close. James500 ( talk) 09:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I expanded the article -- it now includes plenty of sources to support the notability of this concept. I included a section about the historical development of the concept as well as modern application. Please feel free to edit accordingly if you think the article can be improved in any way. -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 19:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild ( talk) 07:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Scotty Broome

Scotty Broome (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Could not find significant coverage in reliable sources. Tagged for notability since 2008. Orphan since 2008. Reads like a resume. ~ Kvng ( talk) 21:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete no RS coverage of any content. Pincrete ( talk) 11:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nomination. No reliable sources. Ashbeckjonathan ( talk) 00:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Kate Baker

Kate Baker (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

A person of questionable notability ( WP:BIO) who works in science fiction fandom / editing. The Hugo award, in a minor category, was for the magazine she was part of the staff of, not for her as an individual. No substantial coverage in reliable published sources that I can immediately ascertain.  Sandstein  21:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Unfortunately delete as my searches found no considerable coverage aside from this and there's no good target for moving elsewhere. SwisterTwister talk 16:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - only primary sources, the two (non-)awards don't pass WP:ANYBIO # 1 Kraxler ( talk) 14:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Weak delete as per above, I found a few more sources, I think the HUGO award is a biggie (but it was shared), not that much other attention. If other sources can be found, I may change my mind.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 23:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. The only two delete !votes give "hoax" as rationale which it certainly is not. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 14:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Cultural Beira

Cultural Beira (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

As others have mentioned, there's no good evidence and the current source actually never mentions this club. As also noted, the author made other questionable and unsourced edits including another I have nominated for AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Espoir Tsevie. SwisterTwister talk 21:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - no evidence this club exists, likely hoax. Giant Snowman 09:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete as hoax article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Not hoax, see this new site I found called RSSSF which, when coupled with this new fangled thing called Google shows in about five seconds that they have played in the top flight of Mozambiquan football as seen here. Meets current consensus for notability for clubs per WP:FOOTYN as they have played in a national competition (and at the highest level). The fact that this initial source is for 1980 is irrelevant per WP:NTEMP. Fenix down ( talk) 14:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep Per good work by Fenix down and this . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 06:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild ( talk) 07:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC) reply

John Player's Gold Leaf Food Street Concert

John Player's Gold Leaf Food Street Concert (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

A TV-hour concert video of a 3-hour 2002 street festival, created by indef banned COI account Talentforfilm. There article has no reliable sources and none appear to exist, from what I can see. As with many Talentforfilm/Kamran Qureshi-created articles (and one deleted category for 'branded' TV shows), it is also a WP:COATRACK to add promote the corporate sponsor in the article title, which in this case is John Player's Gold Leaf. Fails WP:NFILM. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete for reasons given by Shawn in Montreal, (the director's page itself seems littered with highly questionable sources). Pincrete ( talk) 11:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC) reply

I don't know procedure, but the director's page has twice been deleted. Pincrete

• Delete This article mainly serves as promotion for the sponsor and the filmmaker, rather than the artists who performed. And reading over the many articles created by Talentforfilm in a short period of time and the associated SPI doesn't inspire confidence. I think the other article creations should probably be reviewed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Created articles are here. Pincrete ( talk) 19:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild ( talk) 07:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Sam I Barber

Sam I Barber (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

This film producer, director, screenwriter and editor, who is credited in the article with being responsible for The Blair Witch Project, was actually the pre-production supervisor for that film. His only other credit on IMDb is producing Concert for AmericaI ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0298281/?ref_=nm_flmg_prd_1) for which IMDb had no information. I speedied this article but the tag was removed and it was suggested that AfD was a better venue for considering this article's deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - One work and even his IMDb only shows two things and there's not much info there; my searches found results such as this but it's obvious there's not independent notability for an article. This could've even been PROD'd but it's nice to have consensus to give it weight. SwisterTwister talk 21:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

I was acting based on this edit summary ( diff) and since the speedy tag was removed, I don't think a PROD tag would last 7 days. And I think a discussion here will confirm my original assessment.

The one solid mention in your Google search is from The Mammoth Book of Best New Horror, Volume 11 and states a Florida producer named Sam Barber claimed that he was cheated out of an executive producer's credit on Blair Witch. I think this Wikipedia article might be a way to claim that credit. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC) reply

PROD might have been fine, I only declined the speedy because the article stated he was known for "co-authoring and initiating production" on a notable film, making for a credible claim of significance. Sam Walton ( talk) 15:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete and salt was 86-ed by me on copyvio grounds originally, now its an article with no credible claim of significance. TomStar81 ( Talk) 21:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Twentythree Records

Twentythree Records (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

I struggled with this one, as it seems to have had notable artists, but I couldn't establish that it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability for over 7 years; hopefully we can now get it resolved. Boleyn ( talk) 17:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

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

• delete nothing in gnews. Fails WP:CORP. LibStar ( talk) 06:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:CORP. ( founder's article is wholly unsourced despite being a BLP). Pincrete ( talk) 21:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - My searches found nothing to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 16:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:CORP. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 13:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Dana Cunningham

Dana Cunningham (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet notability criteria for musicians or WP:GNG. agtx 17:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

• Delete unfortunately as there's no good target for moving elsewhere and my searches found no considerable coverage aside from this, this and this. SwisterTwister talk 16:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete I looked, but found no significant additional sources. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 23:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Hoax Jac16888 ^Talk 19:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Hugo Betan

Hugo Betan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

An IP user removed the speedy template, but this is an obvious speedy as both A7 and hoax. The subject does not google, and the article is clearly a joke. agtx 17:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Bajoo

Bajoo (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Prior AFD didn't attract any !voters. Some mentions in French language review blogs but nothing significant in WP:RS. Deleted from French wikipedia at AFD here. Vrac ( talk) 17:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - My searches found nothing particularly good including here. SwisterTwister talk 21:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Little independent coverage to suggest notability. Pincrete ( talk) 10:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Software/service article of unclear notability. Only independent ref is a brief mention in a blog, and a search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric ( talk) 14:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete and salt. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Gaurav Agarwal

Gaurav Agarwal (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Since CSD-G4 has been declined on this article, I will return it to AFD for a third time, and request that the title be salted if the consensus is to delete. This mid-level functionary within the civil service of India has not been the subject of any significant coverage. The citations provided are directory listings, newspaper articles quoting Agarwal as a source, but only in passing, and the like. WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 16:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete Per wp:Notability, as in lack of. A civil servant, so what? Note per source is "Director of International Co-operation at Youth Affairs" not Director, which makes it sound like they run the whole Ministry. "Spearheaded the establishment with 1,800 personnel reporting to me," is telling. Likely autobiography. 220 of ^Borg 18:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete & Salt Non notable. TomStar81 ( Talk) 02:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete and salt: The article is merely a CV of a man-with-a-job; no evidence of biographical notability. (Incidentally, one of the articles linked at a previous AfD is about an IIM graduate working at Barclays Capital rather than this government employee.) There appears to be an unwillingness to accept community consensus: should there ever be 3 AfDs under variant names in less than one month? AllyD ( talk) 08:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete Non notable. Probably autobiographical. Pincrete ( talk) 10:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete and salt Per above. In its current state, this almost qualifies for speedy deletion as purely promotional. Makes one's teeth hurt. 2601:188:0:ABE6:3CF7:E4A2:6CC5:354F ( talk) 09:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nomination. Sulabhvarshney ( talk) 10:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete Not notable. Shyamsunder ( talk) 09:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Something something WP:NOTFACEBOOK § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 22:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Oluremi sogbetun

Oluremi sogbetun (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Article is essentially a series of journal entries documenting the author's trip/vacation in violation of WP:NOTESSAY. -- Non-Dropframe _talk 15:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete: per Wikipedia is not a newspaper. -- OluwaCurtis The King : talk to me 15:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. Not at all suitable.-- Ipigott ( talk) 18:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Speedy deletion. WP:A7. WP is not a place to post your personal diary. -- Randykitty ( talk) 20:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete as completely inappropriate for WP, looks like someone just copied and pasted their school report or something -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 20:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  20:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Al Fox Carraway

Al Fox Carraway (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable. Trivial award DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep She has a major impact within the Mormon community. She has coverage from sources that are neither in Salt Lake City nor LDS Church owned. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC) reply

and which sourceis that? DGG ( talk ) 17:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. Arr4 ( talk) 07:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Author-related deletion discussions. Arr4 ( talk) 07:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Arr4 ( talk) 07:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• keep This article falls within 2 enduringly-problematic AFD categories: individuals chiefly notable for their social media presence & individuals notable within an bordered ideological, ethnic, or sectarian community. Carraway has palpable popularity on Facebook 61,000 followers. This does not count towards WP Notability, but WP begins to look foolish when it deletes article on individual with that kind of celebrity. She also has extensive coverage in Deseret News. This is AFD problematic because Deseret is affiliated with the Mormon Church and, therefore, is not regarded as an independent source on coverage of Mormons. On the other hand, having followed a number of Mormonism-related AFD discussions, I have begun to wonder about the basis of this argument. The BBC, after all, is funded by the British government. And I have seen no one argue that BBC articles whould therefore be discounted in AFD debates on Great Britain related topics. Leaving that aside, I think she passes - albeit marginally - because of coverage in RS other than Deseret, some of which are now cite in-line on page. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 13:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Deseret News could be reliable for facts, but it is not an independent source when it promotes their LSD affiliates and employees. Cavarrone 14:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• However, Carraway does not appear to be an LDS employee. I do not read policy to preclude regarding Deseret coverage of Mormons as an indication of notability. Indeed, I do not recall seeing it regarded this way in previous AFDs of Mormons. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

  Yes, she is an LDS' Mormon Channel employee according the first ref in the article. And she is a regular speaker at LDS-organizated events according several other sources. Cavarrone 19:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

  BBC is NOT funded by the UK Govt., it is funded by licence fees which the Govt collects and passes on. While no media could ever be considered 100% independent of the country in which it is based, it would be difficult to imagine any organisation which had more frequently proved its independence from Govt. than the BBC. A wholly invalid analogy. Pincrete ( talk) 10:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• • Cavarrone has either displayed true ignorance of the subject at hand, or extreme bigotry by saying LSD. Also, has ignored the fact that the Ogden Standard-Examiner is neither LDS owned nor in any way LDS related. The fact that Carraway is a vocal advocate for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its truth claims cannot be used to class her as unnotable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete, plain and simple the coverage does not justify a claim of notability, she is just non-notable outside a few regional, LDS-biased sources. Lacks independent reliable sourcing. SUre, she has extensive coverage in Deseret News, but that's unsurprising considering she is a regular speaker at LDS Church events and works for the Mormon Channel (owned by the same Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). And let alone that articles like this one just read more as blatant proselytism than as genuine, independent journalism. 61,000 FB followers is not an impressive number, we deleted dozens of articles about youtubers who had 300,000 or 600,000 followers. More eligible for Mormonpedia or some other wikias, not for an encyclopedia. Cavarrone 14:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

  User:Cavarrone, Your argument is basically Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, or, otherstuffdoesn'texist. But even there you are inaccurate. Bloggers, Youtube celebrities have articles - or don't - depending on whether reliable news media write their blogs up. Multiple RS profiles of Carraway are on the page. Moreover, in her case, the argument that Deseret is not an independent source doesn't apply, since she is not an employee of the Mormon church. At least, I don't find that she is. It appears to be more a case of she converted; started a blog; the blog went viral among Mormons; and Deseret wrote a profile, then another, and another, then gave her lots more coverage, and reprinted at least one blog post. Probably because she's popular and sells papers in Utah. All papers behave this way. The Miami Herald covers Cuba and Latin America intensely; the LA Times covers Hollywood intensely; The New York Times covers Jewish issues and Israel because NYC has a large Jewsis population, the Boston globe gives more space to Irish culture and Ireland than other American papers, the Detroit Free Press covers Arabs in America more intensely than other American papers because the Detroit area has a large population of Middle Eastern descent, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution covers race and black culture better than other America papers. In Utah papers cover Mormons. Of course Utah papers are "regional" and "LDS-biased" - all news is local. But we are not here to judge the news focus of media, only to gauge the extent of reliably sourced coverage. So, yes, Deseret knows that upbeat stories about Mormoms sell papers. That doesn't mean that we dismiss profiles in Deseret because it is owned by a holding company of the Church. As for your other assertion - that she works for the Mormon channel, I only met her today, and I assume that people on blogspot.com are independent bloggers. If you have evidence that she is employed by the MommonChannel it would affect the use of Mormon Channel as evidence of notability. Do you have evidence that she works for them? E.M.Gregory ( talk) 17:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

  First, your reference to Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is a nonsense, as long as I never used such an argument, it was you who argued that 61,000 followers on FB were a sign of notability. Second, the point is that DN is not INDEPENDENT reliable sourcing. Being profiled, and promoted, and used for laudatory articles like the one I linked above by a newspaper owned by an organization (religious in this case, but it could be political, or economic, or something else) for which you are connected and even works for is hardly a sign of notability. Apparently, you have problem to understand what an independent source means, but that's not the place to discuss that, the closer will review the sources and will weight the arguments. Cavarrone 19:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

  In other words, you have no evidence that she works for the LDS Church, as you asserted. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 19:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

  In other words, I think you missed my response here. Cavarrone 19:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

  Being a regular speaker in churches of any denomination would not make you non-indeoendant of a church newspaper. Working for a Mormon Church publication does. My reassessment below. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 19:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

  Being a regular speaker in LDS-events which are regularly promoted by the LDS-newspaper owned by the LDS organization which organizes such events.... I see some connections, frankly. Cavarrone 19:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

  just fyi, Religion News Service is neither LDS-biased nor Utah-based. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment I think Cavarrone's whole argument is flawed by not accepting how much Kellerism (see here [1] for a good explanation of what Kellerism is) has distorted and misdirected the focus on most "main-stream" journalism in the United States. For Wikipedia to maintain a truly neutral point-of-view it has to stop treating anti-institutionalism as somehow a "neutral" point of view, and stop assuming that publications that engage in blatant and heavy Kellerism, to the point of willingly hiding the identity of some people to save their jobs for their deception, are somehow neutral. If Wikipedia wants to be a truly useful, representative source that is not limited to just usefulness to those who live in the Bos-Wash corridor and California, it has to stop biasing its analysis of sources in a way that presumes the correctness of anti-institutionalism. The sources demonstrate that Carraway is impactful within a large community, and her creations and actions get notice. The doctrines of Kellerism that dominate so many newsrooms in the United States work against any possiblity of certain publications ever taking note of her. Kellerism predisposes publications to take note only of things that reinforce their stereotypes, and a tatooed person simultaneously proclaiming love for all and the truth claims of a conservative religious institution does not fit the sight lines of Kellerism. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Still thinking its a keeper. I now see that she is employed by a LDS Church organ, the Mormon Channel. This makes Church publications non-independent sources in her case, useful on facts, but not to be counted as evidence of notability. The entirely independent sources that support notability are Religion News Service, the Standard Examiner and the Daily Herald. Deseret is in an odd position. It is a genuine big city daily. As has been hashed out in previous AFDs, like this one [2] on Kent F. Richards Deseret (which has run several profiles and many articles on Carraway) carries less weight in an AFD than an independent, for-profit paper like the Standard-Examiner, but more weight than a purely Church publication, like LDS Living. The Standard-Examiner profile here: [3] is sufficient, together with Deseret, Religion News Service and the mentions in the Daily Herald to justify an article. I will add a few other extensive Standard Examiner articles on Carraday to the article E.M.Gregory ( talk) 19:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - fails GNG. She appears to be a novelty as a "tattooed" convert who is merely getting local attention. Even Standard profile does not seem truly independent of the church, for example the non-neutral statement that "Her co-workers even made her watch terrible videos of the LDS church." (Whose definition of "terrible" is being applied here?) —Мандичка ^YO 😜 22:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • independent just to be clear , the Standard-Examiner, the 3rd largest newspaper by circulation in Utah, is owned by Sandusky Newspapers [4] and is not church affiliated. Several other sources are equally independent of the Church. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 13:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - for reasons given by Cavarrone and Мандичка, no evidence of notability in independent sources. Pincrete ( talk) 10:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete for now with no obvious target for moving elsewhere - My searches which only found this and this being the best results. SwisterTwister talk 16:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Obvious redirect target would be Mormon Channel. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC) reply

I saw that earlier and I suppose it would be the best target even though it only mentions her under "contributor". SwisterTwister talk 20:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Neither "contributor" nor "associate producer" is sufficient justification for a redirect. In fact, she should be removed from the "contributors" section there--she;'s the only person listed,as if she were the sole contributor. If it was intended to list her as she was the only one with a WP article, it won;'t be appropriate to incldue her once the article here gets deleted. DGG ( talk ) 14:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC) reply

I agree. SwisterTwister talk 16:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment LDS Living should be counted as an independent source, unless we are engaging in bigotry. The argument in the past has been the Church News cannot be used because it is owned by the LDS Church. LDS living is not owned by the LDS Church, thus it meets our standard definition of independent. Excluding all publications aimed at the LDS market would be unprecedented. What next, will we delete all articles on African-Americans only heavily covered by Jet and Ebony? John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Stop accusing everyone of bigotry, when it is just a question of lack of notability and independent sourcing. About your source, LSD Living is just a content aggregator, the LDS living "article" is nothing more than a brief sneak peek of this KSL article (it also ends with "Read the rest of this story at ksl.com") and KSL is is owned by the LDS Church. Definitely not an independent source. I would also point that it is sufficent to actually READ such sources to see their lack of neutrality and independence, eg. this one is blatantly promotional and just reads like a press release. Cavarrone 15:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Unfortunately, alot of what happens in Utah about Mormonism is only going to be (or at least a majority) by Mormon-led sources such as the The Deseret News. I agree that this can be acceptable but better sources is good also. At best, this could've been selectively merged and redirected elsewhere but, as shown, there's no other good target so it's probably still best to delete for now (as I mentioned above). SwisterTwister talk 16:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Wladimir Cárcamo Soto

Wladimir Cárcamo Soto (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Creative professional and academic that lack of notability ( WP:BIO). No evidence W. Cáracamo Soto would pass the professor test or that his creative work have had a large impact. Dentren | ^Talk 09:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete "Ok all right when I dance" seemed laughable as the title of an investigation... in fact it does not exist... -- Diego Grez ( talk) 23:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC) reply

You're quite mistaken about that, see here, the book was published with the Spanish title Ok. Todo bien cuando bailo which translates literally as "Ok. all right when I dance". Kraxler ( talk) 15:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - a published author and anthropologist, no doubt about that, but despite the above mentioned work and this, there are no reviews to pass WP:AUTHOR, and his notability seems to be very much restricted to his hometown, where he might be a minor local celebrity. Kraxler ( talk) 15:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle ( talk) 08:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Toy Museum (Malacca)

Toy Museum (Malacca) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:ORG. A tiny museum, only primary sources provided LibStar ( talk) 16:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep Malacca is a historic place with lots of museums. These are notable, being documented in detail in sources such as Melaka History and Heritage in Museums. There may be some scope for merger, especially for those which are housed in the same building complex but, per our policies WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE, this would not be done by deletion. Andrew D. ( talk) 10:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

you've recycled this same argument in various afds but fail to show in-depth coverage about this specific museum. WP:PRESERVE does not override if an article is not notable. LibStar ( talk) 11:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

the book reference you've supplied doesn't even appear to even mention this toy museum, that's what happens when you recycle the same AfD argument over and over again. LibStar ( talk) 15:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

The book is a general survey of Malacca's museums and so was a good starting point for the numerous identical AFDs about these topics. For a detailed source about this particular place see The Brunei Times. My !vote stands. Andrew D. ( talk) 09:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - A search online finds no reliable sources supporting notability. Neither reference in the article is authoritative.-- Rpclod ( talk) 17:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep Added another 2 reference from Utusan Online and Kosmo (in Malay language). Added its website link, opening time, Facebook page, museum owner. More info was added on its introductory description, info of it being the 2nd toy museum in Malaysia after the one in Penang, total number of toy figures displayed, more history of its original establishment date & its relocation to its current location. Added to another 2 Wikipedia articles category based on its establishment year. Chongkian ( talk) 10:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

adding article categories, opening time and Facebook page has no bearing on notability. LibStar ( talk) 13:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Looking at the sources this would not qualify as reliable source as it is merely hosting a rather amateur brochure of the museum. LibStar ( talk) 15:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep I found these two sources from online news websites [5] [6], which I believe demonstrate significant coverage. Altamel ( talk) 19:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I've added more information of its history and exhibitions. The museum interior photo also has been added. Chongkian ( talk) 01:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

photos do not add to notability. LibStar ( talk) 08:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - for reasons given by LibStar and Rpclod. Insufficient independent RS. Pincrete ( talk) 11:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep struck double vote, see below - added another 2 references from myMetro online newspaper (Malay language) and Wisata Malaysia (Indonesian language). Chongkian ( talk) 01:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Chongkian, per WP:AFDFORMAT: "do not repeat your recommendation on a new bulleted line." Please delete your duplicate !votes.-- Rpclod ( talk) 03:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Pincrete: Please explain your !vote. Why are the two references I pointed out insufficient? Altamel ( talk) 16:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Altamel, what is difficult to understand? Two references is not very many, and only one is new (the other is Andrew Davidson's). Pincrete ( talk) 16:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your expedient reply.According to the timestamps, I mentioned the Brunei Times on July 12 and Andrew Davidson mentioned it on July 19. But furthermore, Chongkian added two references to Kosmo Online and Utusan. That's four references, and I think that should be enough. WP:SIGCOV says there is no fixed number of sources needed, only specifying that it should be "multiple" sources, so I don't see why four should not suffice. Altamel ( talk) 16:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Utrop. MBisanz ^talk 20:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Majoran Vivekananthan

Majoran Vivekananthan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. Just because he's the editor of an online newspaper doesn't make him notable. Whilst the newspaper has an article in WP I'd say it also has questionable notability LibStar ( talk) 18:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - local news only; fails WP:GNG. Bearian ( talk) 09:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete or redirect to Utrop - I'm not a Norwegian speaker so I don't know what these sources say but it's best I found, but I'm more convinced to delete as it's unlikely there's independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 17:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete or redirect to Utrop - fails WP:GNG. Pincrete ( talk) 11:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment only, as I am a too seldom user of en-wp to know about rules and standards here. It should be noted though that Utrop is not only an online newspaper, it is also a regularly published paper paper (twice a month). I would say it is a rather visible/audible voice in the Norwegian media world when it comes to matters like immigration, integration and equal opportunities – and has been so for several years. But naturally, if the standard for minor media like this is to merge the editor(s) into the media article, so will be acceptable here, too. Regards, GAD ( talk) 12:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. There is a weak consensus that while the article does not meet the WP:NFOOTBALL guideline there is sufficient coverage to meet the main notability guideline. Davewild ( talk) 07:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Yanaki Smirnov

Yanaki Smirnov (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Speedy deletion per WP:G4 was declined on the grounds that this version of the article is sufficiently different from the one deleted in 2012. However, Yanaki Smirnov has still not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article still fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 14:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 14:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete and SALT - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep - meets GNG. Fails NFOOTBALL as competitor one rung below top league of professionals, but has been frequently featured in Bulgarian press as a top junior and the top scorer in the B league [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] —Мандичка ^YO 😜 18:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. From the sources noted above, I can see one interview of decent length and one other article that is longer than a couple of paragraphs. The fact that he is 22 and playing for a reserve team suggests it is WP:TOOSOON. Fenix down ( talk) 08:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Did you look for further sources? (Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) —Мандичка ^YO 😜 17:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Fails NFOOTBALL, but meet GNG with becoming a top scorer of B group and now is playing for Ludogorets. Thats why i made the article. No point to be deleted now and be remade again after month or 2. Have made that and with other articles, like Aleksandar Kolev, and i feel the case is just the same. Article have all the needed refs, so it could stay. K.belev ( talk) 17:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Other stuff exists is not a valid argument for keeping the article, and there is a long standing consensus against applying WP:NSPORT prematurely in anticipation of potential future appearances. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 17:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Ok, still meet GNG, which for me is enough for keeping the article. K.belev ( talk) 21:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

It doesn't matter that he fails sport notability guidelines; he meets GNG. —Мандичка ^YO 😜 07:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply

You haven't shown GNG, simply an interview , one other article and a number of short clippings. As the sources are not in English it would help if you could outline what the sources say and help out a bit more than simply reposting the source search, it's not possible for many of us to separate routine transfer talk and match reporting from genuine significant coverage. I am happy to change my vote if this can be shown and take your word on the content of articles, but per WP:BURDEN, not only am I not able to do so because of the language barrier, I am not obligated to. Fenix down ( talk) 07:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply

But it's your duty to actually do a search before you declare someone doesn't meet GNG. Also any literate person can tell whether an article is about the subject even if you can't actually read it (esp using Google Chrome or browser with built in translation). I search for sources all the time in languages I can't read, so I don't see why you're "not able to so," unless you are also blind, in which case I'm sorry for your affliction. —Мандичка ^YO 😜 08:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Мандичка passes WP:GNG through it fails WP:NFOOTY and also this article in Bulgarian Wikipedia. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 11:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The sources cited include one interview and several individually-focused news pieces on the subject. I find the sources from the Bulgarian article unconvincing because they focus on the team, but the sources cited in this discussion focus specifically on the player. That's enough for GNG. agtx 17:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild ( talk) 07:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC) reply

List of duplicate file finders

List of duplicate file finders (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a list of duplicate file finders, virtually none of which have (or are ever likely to have) Wikipedia articles. The descriptions and features have no source other than the repositories. Chunks of it are spammy. Hell, the entire thing is spammy. The only ones with articles are the ones not in the feature comparison. Guy ( Help!) 16:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Though it may be superficially spammy, from a pragmatic standpoint this list is helpful for learning about existing duplicate file finding programs and in the worst case is not harming Wikipedia by simply existing. Granted, the listing could be cleaned up a lot; having the name of each program in the last field and the implementation language in the first isn't all that great, but that's also not a reason for outright deletion. Is there a reason for deletion that is more substantial than "[in my opinion] this is spammy?" Daivox ( talk) 21:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• See WP:USEFUL. Guy ( Help!) 22:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Wikipedia is not a software directory and has an external linking policy. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Once all the spam/linkfarm ELs are removed, we will be left with a short list, but with 4+ notable entries, it would meet WP:CSC for lists, and we have quite a few software list articles where all of the entires are notable. Dialectric ( talk) 02:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete- Wikipedia is not a software directory, or product comparison guide. Reyk _YO! 11:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Although a rename to Hobart Bus Mall sounds like it is in order. kelapstick^{( bainuu)} 15:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Hobart Bus Station

Hobart Bus Station (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable bus station - There's nothing at all on Google or High Beam. Fails GNG – Davey2010 ^Talk 16:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame ( talk) 08:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep and possibly rename - central public transport station in an Australian capital city, which in my opinion automatically grants notability. It possibly has the significance of a central train station since Hobart has no trains or trams. Finally: the article name seems to be a poor choice. I'm not from Hobart, but a quick google suggests "Hobart Bus Mall" is the common name, while "Hobart City" is the official name on the timetables. So it should probably be renamed to one of them. Adpete ( talk) 23:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep and rename Hobart Bus Mall. just as adpete said southern Tasmania has nothing but busses, no trams or trains. They are doing a large remodel too on the bus mall. [12] Most exciting, assaults on Taz bus drivers are down 50%! [13] Alec Station ( talk) 11:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Just a street with bus stops on it. Not a proper bus station. There are thousands of the former in cities all over the world; they don't have articles. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC) reply

It's about the transit mall which is significant (and not a station). It is being given a $2million revitalisation project that is very significant. [14] [15] Alec Station ( talk) 03:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Yes. I've looked at it on Google Streetview. It's just a few bus stops on a street. I've seen larger bus stations in small towns in Europe. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 09:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Transport_in_Hobart#Public_Transport. Not notable, not interesting, but information on the bus system as a whole belongs at the target. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep per User:Alec Station's references. The development has received significant coverage in multiple independent sources, so the subject passes WP:GNG. St Anselm ( talk) 09:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Transport_in_Hobart#Public_Transport. No sources verify anything important or significant beyond the mere existence and function of this bus station. AadaamS ( talk) 18:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. No support for deletion apart from the nominator. Davewild ( talk) 07:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Demang Abdul Ghani Gallery

Demang Abdul Ghani Gallery (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:ORG. The Malay version of this article is unreferenced LibStar ( talk) 15:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep The Malay (ms) version of the article has 2 references already. Chongkian ( talk) 06:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC) reply

some of the additonal sources are not reliable, there's a youtube reference and this appears an advertorial site. LibStar ( talk) 06:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Added some other references (for both English & Malay version of the article), such as from Kosmo (Malaysian online magazine/newspaper?) & Utusan Online (Malaysian online newspaper). Chongkian ( talk) 09:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Found another reference from this book. Chongkian ( talk) 03:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Added another reference from Utusan Online (Malay language). Chongkian ( talk) 09:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep Was the subject of a study on the museum's authenticity [16] and an online newsmagazine article [17]. Altamel ( talk) 15:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC) reply

the book reference appears to be just a one line mention on p.43. LibStar ( talk) 06:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• @ User:LibStar: No, it's not. On page 42, top of the second column, the source reads, "The Penghulu (chieftain) Abdul Ghani bin Abdul Majid House in Merlimau, is among the oldest Melaka houses which still stands tall..." and then it goes on to talk about the furniture and size of the house. Also, on page 43, the source reads, "The data were collected in Demang Abdul Ghani Gallery", so all the data from the survey responses which follow are also about the museum. Altamel ( talk) 16:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Also, since you commented on many more AfDs than I have, could clear up a point of confusion for me? If the discussion is relisted, do are replies to !votes made before the relist supposed to go before the relist or after? Altamel ( talk) 16:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Replies to old comments may be made above the "relisted" message, to keep the discussion together. New comments should be made, as the message says, below. It doesn't make any difference for the overall result of the discussion whether something was placed above or below. Kraxler ( talk) 15:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Added another reference from Brunei Times. Chongkian ( talk) 01:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Lil Wayne. — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Tha Carter V

Tha Carter V (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Not much context, may fail WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NALBUMS and contains no references to prove notability. The Average Wikipedian ( talk) 15:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete The actual article was just moved to Draft:Tha Carter V a few days ago. Koala15 ( talk) 18:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Davewild ( talk) 07:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC) reply

New Garia

New Garia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

one big listing of overly detailed busroutes The Banner  talk 16:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep - The nom is only concerned with the over-emphasis on transportation and not with notability. It's a designated population center [18] that even has its own train station. [19] Problems with the article is a matter of editing, not deletion per WP:DEL-CONTENT.-- Oakshade ( talk) 18:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:N. Three brief mentions that such a place exists, all three in reference to a bus stop finally coming there, doesn't qualify as substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Oakshade above says "keep" on the basis of the same guideline, but that guideline isn't satisfied. If Oakshade is convinced there is substantial coverage of the neighborhood, as a neighborhood, and what it's notable for, by all means please show us those sources.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

  False. I said "Keep" because the nom's only stated rationale to delete because of current article state, not notability, and that it's a designated population center, so much so there's even a train station. Such a neighborhood in the United States or UK would never even be considered for deletion. Is this a case of systemic bias? -- Oakshade ( talk) 20:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

  Without the bus routes you have no realistic content left. The Banner  talk 23:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

  More than just buses. New Garia is going to be the terminus of the New Garia-Airport Metro line on the Kolkata Metro from Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose International Airport to New Garia. [20] [21] [22] No government spends equivalent to USD$4 billion for metros to non-notable places. -- Oakshade ( talk) 23:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

  I will not stop you from changing this bus book into a proper article. The Banner  talk 09:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

  It's been reduced to a stub and not longer "one big listing of overly detailed busroutes," the only stated criteria for this Afd.-- Oakshade ( talk) 01:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC) reply

  Wrong, as expected the IP has restored the route information The Banner  talk 13:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC) reply

  And I reverted the totally unsourced content addition. This is an issue with a problem editor, not notability. Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup is a worthwhile essay. -- Oakshade ( talk) 18:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Oakshade - Don't mean to sound like a dick but the nom should've just removed the list ... Not sent a village article here because of the list. List has been removed so no reason to delete .– Davey2010 ^Talk 00:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • It was stubified but the IP has restored the route information... The Banner  talk 13:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC) reply
    • So why not revert the IP ? .... You sent an article here because an IP added a whole load of shit anyone could've and should've reverted ?, It just seems rather silly but there we go. – Davey2010 ^Talk 19:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep – Appears to meet the first point of WP:GEOLAND. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. This has been on for nearly a month now and with only the creator and an IP are arguing to keep, the reasoned arguments of the nominator and CactusWriter are sufficient to delete. Stifle ( talk) 08:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Klaus Lovgreen

Klaus Lovgreen (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Simply a CV listing this entrepreneur's various companies he has co-founded during his career. The tiny amount of biographical info (and date of birth) is uncited. Lovgreen is quoted in some news sources, but the coverage listed here is about the companies, not him. Being named on a list as 55th most influential technology investor in 2011 isn't really going to push him over the WP:GNG threshold in my view. AME Info (which he co-founded in 1993) seems to be notable enough, and maybe a good course of action would be to redirect this article to that target. Overall, lacks any journalistic coverage about him and fails WP:GNG. Sionk ( talk) 17:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep I disagree deleting the article - the coverage where he is quoted is obviously about the companies he has founded and run - and it is what makes an entrepreneur/business person. I agree it lacks personal info and citation there. The seed investment in Tradeshift is quite significant to back up the investor statement from 2011 - these things does not happen over night. His latest company GivingTales seems to involve quite a few interesting components including Kiloo as a partner as also mentioned in the Guardian article - this is definitely notable. Wikikaylov — Preceding undated comment added 08:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC) Note: Wikikaylov is the creator of this article. reply

Keep Lack of citation does not equal lack of sources ("Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article"), a quick Google shows 1000's of potential sources. Sionk should either remove uncited information or attempt to find a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.209.99.114 ( talk) 08:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC) reply

NOTE -- — 88.209.99.114 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment - both the above contributions seem to misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. Being a businessman is not in itself a qualification for a write-up in an encyclopedia. Neither is his appearance in a Google search of the internet. As I stated in my intro, there is no evidence of significant reliable secondary coverage about Lovgreen. Please point me to a couple of news articles or other reliable secondary coverage about Klaus Lovgreen (rather than the businesses he co-created). Sionk ( talk) 17:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

The guy was based in the Middle East for nearly 20 years and quoted and interviewed in many regional newspapers and magazines as a leader in his field and a driver of technology in the region.

Here are some articles http://gulfnews.com/news/uae/general/regional-market-for-pdas-expected-to-grow-rapidly-1.351165

http://www.arabianbusiness.com/reality-check-207291.html

http://www.itp.net/489636-the-e-achievers/

http://www.bi-me.com/main.php?id=2231&t=1

https://books.google.fr/books?id=K-N7zOHsQHUC&pg=PA270&lpg=PA270&dq=%22klaus+lovgreen%22+the+national&source=bl&ots=KXmKgWKOSZ&sig=FynHY_7tBtJMD8aa8R_eLlhaVK4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBGoVChMI_-GriabbxgIVB8cUCh0NPARy#v=onepage&q=%22klaus%20lovgreen%22%20the%20national&f=false

http://www.albawaba.com/news/‘digitisation-will-make-piracy-irrelevant’-say-directors-new-multi-media-fund

https://wam.ae/en/news/business/1395226368912.html

http://www.gulfnews.com/business/sectors/technology/cd-sales-music-stores-strike-poor-chords-1.636790

http://www.albayan.ae/economy/1125289807867-2005-09-07-1.96616

http://www.albayan.ae/economy/ameinfo-avantgo-2001-04-18-1.1137380

https://books.google.ae/books?id=d3P2soRhNcIC&pg=PA159&lpg=PA159&dq=كلاوس+ameInfo&source=bl&ots=ctDt-_p-kg&sig=zZ5cdNT7DM90uPMYtg4JJf4e6gg&hl=ar&sa=X&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBzgKahUKEwiqjJD7qdvGAhXH1hQKHYY4Djc#v=onepage&q=كلاوس%20ameInfo&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=d3P2soRhNcIC&pg=PA16&dq=klaus+lovgreen&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAmoVChMI6OaV0KrbxgIVS8AUCh3J_Qs4#v=onepage&q=klaus%20lovgreen&f=false

Founding Member IT Forum in UAE http://www.zu.ac.ae/iti/itforum/biography.html

Perhaps you can suggest some content based on the above so we can get the page up to the standard required? Appreciate your help - I am trying to add content from areas I have some knowledge about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikikaylov ( talk • contribs) 19:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• DELETE -- fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG for significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The refs in the article and those provided above are trivial mentions or quotes by Lovgreen in relation to a business -- but the coverage is entirely about the business, usually AME Info. None of the articles are about Lovgreen himself. I also found no coverage of Lovgreen in the major Danish sources. The article should be deleted, then redirected to AMEinfo.com. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC) reply

-KEEP- Once again I disagree - you seem to just dismiss media outlets you are not familiar with as not "reliable". The book about Dubai is not mentioned in this these arguments either - and the drive of the internet and and business in the Middle East by someone from Denmark back in 1996 is not insignificant and he is continuing to innovate and start new projects. He is not mentioned in the danish press as he has lived abroad most of his life if you read the background. I fail to understand why these achievements are being reduced to a "CV" and should be redirected to just his first project. Wikikaylov ( talk) 17:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Wikikaylov, first, it is standard practice in Wikipedia deletion discussions to state a !vote only once -- and thereafter discuss without stating another !vote. This is why your latest "keep" has been struck. As to your above comment: it is not "reliability" that is the issue. As both the nominator and I have stated it is the lack of significant coverage and the independence of sources that is the problem. IMO, the book -- a personal memoir by a partner at AMEinfo -- is not an independent source for a BLP on Lovgreen. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to InformationWeek. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 14:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC) reply

The BrainYard

The BrainYard (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Prod was removed from this article about a news website that no longer exists. Although the website appears to have won an industry award a few years ago, the secondary source coverage appears to be entirely of the press-release type. Article was of questionable notability at best when the website existed, and now that it does not exist anymore, I think we can decide conclusively that it is not notable. Agtx ( talk) 17:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Merge with InformationWeek ~ GottaGoFast ^{Step it up} 20:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Probably selective merge (and only this rather than redirect because it is not actually fully mentioned at InformationWeek; my searches found nothing to suggest improvement or good notability here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that while this is a nice, well-written, article, unfortunately there is a lack of verification of notability. PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 06:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Jonas Conley

Jonas Conley (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Nice and worthy article but not notable in Wikipedia terms. References are very local and not from any significant sources. No doubt important for the church and the area where he worked but that doesn't make him notable here.   Velella   ^{Velella Talk}   22:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - I think the nom sums it up nicely. The sources alone are too local and really primary in nature. Nothing else exists that even approaches significant coverage. Interesting, well written and formatted, but not notable via WP:GNG. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I'm not seeing any significant results in Google Books, etc. The claim "was a significant influence on higher education" could indicate notability, but it would need to be found in reliable sources. The reference provided does not mention Conley. St Anselm ( talk) 18:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - My searches (and believe me, I searched several times with different details) found nothing at all to suggest improvement or better notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• preserve - http://madisoncountyal.gov/mcrc/searchprobate.php I'm not a Wikipedia editor, nor am I an expert. However, I did find more than a dozen articles on obscure New England religious figures of similar provincial relevance. These were WASP figures in a circumstance in which accurate records were kept, but even then there were numerous speculative statements regarding their relevance. As mixed race person, the figure Jonas Conley could not even be counted as human being for some 20 years after the Civil War ended. It should be considered that the Huntsville Library archives revealed this figure did in fact lead the CME Church in the region, clearly evidenced by the church and graveyard recognized by the Alabama Historical Commission. However, the Huntsville library does not offer web access to those records. The figure owned property on which two of the historically black colleges in the region are located, but this was in violation of state law which prohibited land ownership by persons of 1/32 African origin. The land records show a white citizen had to sign the Madison County documents on behalf of Mr. Conley. The Huntsville archives: http://digitalarchives.hmcpl.org/ Madison County Property Records Center http://madisoncountyal.gov/mcrc/searchprobate.php CASE 8122 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madisonhistory ( talk • contribs) 01:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Dear Madisonhistory, this is the only edit you have made on Wikipedia, and you appear to have created your account on 17 or 18 July, 2015 (depending on time zones). I am curious as to what brought you here to this rather obscure corner of WP. It's an odd place to start. LaMona ( talk) 22:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep -- I do not really know enough of American history to be sure, but I get the feeling that this man played a significnat role in the struggle for equality. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. In addition to above searches (which I repeated myself), I've also searched ProQuest's historical newspaper database to see if anything shows up, and nothing did. Even if the subject is notable, we can't verify it. agtx 17:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Merge or redirect to Conley family where he's already mentioned, unless I am mistaken. -- j⚛e decker ^talk 22:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. I looked at the article and both sides of the discussion, and I feel that in its current state, the article has met the notability and verifiability thresholds. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply

P. Elmo Futrell, Jr.

P. Elmo Futrell, Jr. (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Mayor of a town of less than 15,000 people. IMHO there is nothing here that fufills WP:POLITICIAN criteria. Article is also largely based on obituaries and Find a Grave which both fail WP:RS. ...William 18:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• This is very serious, we need to get the Baton Rouge Morning Advocate blacklisted as unreliable as quickly as possible. We should immediately delete the several hundred references used in Wikipedia from the Baton Rouge Morning Advocate. We may have to delete those articles too. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 04:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• delete at first I thought the article sounded plausable, but without additional outside secondary sources discussing impact (could be newspaper coverage of the election, for example), it doesn't meet GNG... too many of the sources don't meet RS and are used to highlight material broader than basic factual information. Sadads ( talk) 18:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Subject was Louisiana Mayor of the Year in 1964. Qualifies under "local politician". Other sources are off-line, as he left office in the spring of 1966. Billy Hathorn ( talk) 20:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply

The "local politician" criterion requires that you show significantly more press coverage than has been offered here, and winning a "mayor of the year" award isn't a criterion that gets a mayor over WP:NPOL in and of itself. Bearcat ( talk) 17:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Of the seven sources here, two of them are covering him specifically in the context of his death rather than any actual career coverage, two are obituaries of his son and wife (thus entirely failing to constitute any sort of coverage of him), two are on completely invalid user-generated content sites that cannot support his notability, and the only one that counts for anything toward getting him past WP:GNG just namechecks his existence rather than being about him. Even the mayor of a city ten or 100 times this size would not be entitled to keep a Wikipedia article based on that piss-poor quality of sourcing — and winning a "mayor of the year" award confers no kind of notability freebie whatsoever on a person who can't be sourced better than this either. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 17:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• New info found on term as mayor. I will look for more; most would be off-line, as he left office 49 years ago. Billy Hathorn ( talk) 02:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete falls far short of notability guidelines. Mayor of the year for a state no more makes a person notable than being teacher of the year for a state. If it did my 5th grade teacher would have an article in Wikipedia. Also at the time Futrell was mayor the city had less than 10,000 residents. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment In the comments for deletion of Jerry D. Roe, you wrote: Keep That Michiganian of the year award seems enough. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC); so why is Michiganian of the Year" notable but not a statewide "Mayor of the Year" in Louisiana? Billy Hathorn ( talk) 04:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep The press coverage seems sufficient to meet the requirement for a mayor. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 04:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep He was the mayor in the 60s, so you're not going to find many sources online. Ever heard of this? Rainbow unicorn ( talk) 18:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Nobody in this discussion said that the sources had to be online, or that newspaper sourcing was unacceptable. I use non-web print-only sourcing all the time. But newspaper sourcing still has to be cited in the article — it is not enough to merely assert that newspaper coverage might exist, if you don't actually show your work. Bearcat ( talk) 18:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment. There are eight newspaper sources and a total of fifteen sources for one who left office in 1966. This is more sourcing than many articles have. The article Thomas "Tommy" Nelson, former mayor of New Roads (population under 5,000) has one source about Nelson's indictment, presumably awaiting expansion by someone. The article does not even have the years Nelson was mayor. There is nothing in the rules about population of cities and mayors though some keep referring to this. Billy Hathorn ( talk) 18:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Sketchy sourcing and failing GNG with stretches per Sadads. The Dissident Aggressor 13:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep Ample reliable and verifiable sources regarding a political figure who left office almost 50 years ago. The level of detail and sourcing provided by User:Billy Hathorn goes well beyond the minimums of the notability standard. Alansohn ( talk) 17:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep per WP:HEY. Good job, Billy_Hathorn. Bearian ( talk) 22:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep as subject crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds. Notability is not a competition. - Dravecky ( talk) 13:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep I'm seeing the WP:BASIC met, and the ideas presented in WP:HEY also apply. -- j⚛e decker ^talk 22:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete as A10 (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 16:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC) reply

List of highest-grossing South Indian films worldwide

List of highest-grossing South Indian films worldwide (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Cinema of South India (and I'd guess this page) is a combination of film industries in four different languages. This is basically List of highest-grossing Tamil films plus other languages within India but not including List of highest-grossing Bollywood films. It's an odd distinction to have. Ricky81682 ( talk) 22:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}| lambast 01:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}| lambast 01:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}| lambast 01:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• I'm not really seeing a deletion rationale here, particularly since it's not really an "odd distinction" when reliable sources use it (as seen in Cinema of South India) and the "South Indian film" grouping is formally organized within the industry. postdlf ( talk) 13:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

The rationale is the other film articles are organized by country (see Template:Lists of box office number-one films) and organizing a list of these films is not necessary and could instead be merged into List of highest-grossing Indian films. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 01:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

I see even List of highest-grossing Bollywood films has been merged there (though just recently), so that makes sense. postdlf ( talk) 13:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• speedy delete as A-10 attempt to POV fork off List of highest-grossing Indian films created by an inappropriate cut and paste copyright violation from some previous article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 11:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Khaled Akil

Khaled Akil (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Article appears to be a vanity page. A Google search turns up Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, and this article. Google News produces 7 hits, but this individual is not actually the subject of any of them. Subject was interviewed by "Your Middle East" two years ago, but I could not ascertain the significance of this web site. Subject does not appear to meet the notability guidelines of WP:ARTIST. KDS4444 ^Talk 21:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete Vanity article, fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Joseph2302 ( talk) 21:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply

A google search shows a verified page along with articles talking about this individual such as Vice magazine, also many articles you can find it in his reference section under the individual's article on Wikipedia.

• The Vice magazine "reference" is a photo credit with his name on it. He himself is not even mentioned in the article. Sources need to provide in-depth coverage of the subject and should be tied to specific points in the article which they are supporting. Look, I can tell you worked hard on this article, and I can understand you will be upset if it eventually gets deleted. It will really help you in the long run if you become familiar with Wikipedia's notability criteria and with the process of article creation before investing so much time and effort in an article which might not survive a deletion discussion. This is what causes many potential editors to sour on Wikipedia and not come back. Your contributions are welcome! They just have to meet some specific criteria first. KDS4444 ^Talk 05:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply

• This is his biography from a reliable source Foto Fest international discoveries 5 , Also you can read this interview with Ham&High magazine and Reorient Magazine http://www.reorientmag.com/2012/09/khaled-akil/ , http://www.hamhigh.co.uk ,

On the other hand, please visit his Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/khaledakil which has a blue badge, I think Facebook does't give the blue badge if the individual is not internationally known !.lora 09:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Devon ( talk • contribs) 07:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply

• Quickly: You are not signing your talk page entries with four tildes like this: ~~~~. Do you think you could work on this? This would be very helpful! Next, if the references you mentioned above are valid, you should put them in the article following the standard Wikipedia in-line citation format so that other editors can quickly check them (see WP:REFERENCE for more info on how to put in a reference). Last, nothing on Facebook counts for anything on Wikipedia! Facebook is considered a "primary source" and does not provide editorial oversight for its content— Wikipedia can only consider sources that are truly independent of the subject, which Facebook is not, is never, will never be. The Facebook "blue badge" means nothing. We need to see at least two reliable, independent, secondary sources with editorial oversight that cover the subject in depth, and we need to see them in the article itself so we can verify their relevance. Can you do this? KDS4444 ^Talk 09:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Also: please understand that I am highly sympathetic to Mr. Akil's political perspective and the tone and intent of his work. Syria is a troubled place, and I applaud his attempt to look at its problems with sincerity. My only concern here is as a Wikipedia editor, and this concern has only to do with his notability. I hope this is clear. Sometimes in deletion discussions things like this get lost. KDS4444 ^Talk 10:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply

• Note: I may by mistake deleted so comments of User:Joseph2302, please be patient on me, I'm still new here and trying to figure out how to use the shortcuts. as for the signature I'm sorry for that and it's gonna be fine. sorry User:Joseph2302 David ( talk) 10:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply

• I've readded my comments in the correct place, no harm done. Joseph2302 ( talk) 15:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply

• I've added the required references, hopefully it'll support the Bio and other materials. Does adding photographs make any different ? David ( talk) 16:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply

• Adding photographs makes no difference. All that will make a difference is evidence of published, verifiable, independent, in-depth (non-trivial) coverage from multiple reliable sources. The references that have been added are still not formatted correctly, and are not "inline" citations (they are not connected to specific parts of the article they are intended to support (see WP:INCITE for information about how and why to do this), but, by looking them over, it appears you may have made the case for this person's notability after all, and I am withdrawing my nomination to delete as a result. KDS4444 ^Talk 19:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete and draft/userfy or simply draft/userfy if wished; my searches found nothing considerably good aside from some of the current links here (browser) but nothing at News, Books, highbeam and thefreelibrary. There's not much for an article now, SwisterTwister talk 18:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• I'ts hard to relay on News and Books as sources for most of artists from the Middle east, because they put their news in their native language and the war going there from 5 years, generally not all artist has books or news, usually they only make interviews and they write articles about them, and that's doesn't mean that the individual is not known, Despite that the individual in the article is a well known artist and had a plenty of exhibitions worldwide talking about the war in his country and the middle east, he is the grandson of Abd al-Rahman al-Kawakibi, and that's one of the reasons I've created this article for, to let people know the descendants of this important public figure , User:SwisterTwister please check the Resources provided in the article. David ( talk) 20:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep I agree with AfD nominator KDS4444 (who has withdrawn the AfD nomination) that David Devon has established with sources like Reorient,Hamhigh, and Your Middle East that Khaled Akil is notable per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. In addition to the English-language sources in the article, there are likely non-English sources about the subject that are offline or are difficult to find for people who do not read and write Arabic. Cunard ( talk) 06:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Note: Generally a nominator can withdraw "If no-one else has supported the deletion proposal..." See WP:WDAFD. Here Joseph2302 and SwisterTwister appear to have supported the deletion proposal.

• But the Original nominator he withdraw this request, plus there is a recourse in the bio already exist on Wikipedia like Reorient , please Joseph2302 and SwisterTwister we need an answer from you. David ( talk) 13:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Questions. Above, David tells us that the individual in the article is a well known artist and had a plenty of exhibitions worldwide talking about the war in his country and the middle east. Good. Then where is the evidence for these exhibitions? Also, that I'ts hard to relay on News and Books as sources for most of artists from the Middle east, because they put their news in their native language and the war going there from 5 years, generally not all artist has books or news, usually they only make interviews and they write articles about them. Okay, then where is the evidence in Arabic, Turkish, Hebrew, or any of the other languages that are used thereabouts; or in French or any of the other languages widely used for discussion of photography; or indeed in any other language? Meanwhile, here is his website. As I view it, it's in English, with no visible option to switch languages. It has internal links to three "exhibitions", but neither of the two I clicked on seems to mention any actual exhibitions in the normal sense (photos stuck on walls in places where interested people may choose to go). And unlike most websites of photographers, there's no list of exhibitions, of publications by the photographer, of publications about the photographer, of links to discussions in the more incisive among photography blogs, etc. Am I missing something here? If my browser were set up to have Arabic as the most preferred language, would I see something different? -- Hoary ( talk) 00:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• User:Hoary 1: "Evidences", it seems you didn't open the resources in the article, please open them all and I'm sure you will find out that half of them are talking about the exhibitions, 2: Evidence in Arabic and Turkish, again it seems you didn't do your homework well, actually the most sources you can find for this artist is in Turkish, and Arabic, Even on of the links in the article will take you to an interview with a Turkish TV, Also you can find an interview for the artist in Sky News Arabic, 3: It's not true that you can't find list of exhibitions in his website, go to his website and you will see above Exhibition, under it the exhibitions with years!, you missing a lot of things. David ( talk) 18:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Again, the "exhibitions" tab on his website seems to suggest that there was an exhibition of title X in year Y, but it doesn't say where this was or link to anything about it. Nevertheless, keep, thanks to the piece by Hester Keijser and another I clicked on within the list that now appears within the WP article. -- Hoary ( talk) 20:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Once you strip away the mountains of off-topic commentary, there is reasonably good consensus here that insufficient high-quality sources exist to establish notability. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Legal Aid Society of Orange County

Legal Aid Society of Orange County (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

I tried to improve this article but I'm not not sure if it's even marginally notable given that there aren't that many good sources and most of it was for the homelessness defense case and the others passing, primary or for a "Legal Aid Society of Orange County, Florida" (not entirely sure if it's related). My searches were here, here, here, here and here (note that I started adding "California" at the end to sort the relevant results). SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 11:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 11:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 11:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• delete fails WP:ORG. Twister's searches indicate insufficient coverage. LibStar ( talk) 15:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I am prepared to accept this satisfies GNG. Seems large. In any event, I would have thought the possibility of merger/redirection into a broader article on the area, perhaps on the legal system of the area, or on this type of society, would preclude deletion. James500 ( talk) 20:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• I have struck my !vote above, not because I think this topic is not notable (it is notable), but because this AfD needs to end as soon as possible to prevent it from being used as a forum for off topic comments and personal attacks, and I want to remove any obstacle to it ending. James500 ( talk) 23:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC) reply

how does it satisfy GNG? Most of the coverage is not in-depth or primary. LibStar ( talk) 23:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

"Most", in that context, isn't a valid argument for deletion. If any of the coverage is both secondary and significant, that will suffice, even if the rest isn't. James500 ( talk) 20:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

can you please point to actual coverage that would satisfy WP:GNG? LibStar ( talk) 23:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Easily. Start with the magazine article on OC lawyers presently cited in our article. Then, there is another magazine article in GBooks which covers their litigation in favour of some kind of right to sleep rough. James500 ( talk) 22:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep - this is a large LSA for a big, diverse county/metro area. At first, I thought it was for Orange County, New York, which I would have voted to delete. With a little more digging, sources should be easy to find. Bearian ( talk) 20:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC) reply

WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar ( talk) 09:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Actually, the real guideline (NRVE) says that an article is not to be deleted if it is likely that adequate sources exist, whether or not they are actually produced. James500 ( talk) 11:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC) reply

So this article should be deleted, because it is unlikely that adequate sources exist. Because, you know, people have looked and come up empty-handed. Reyk _YO! 13:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC) reply

I did not come up empty handed. I said so in express words above. James500 ( talk) 10:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC) reply

So where are they? Reyk _YO! 13:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete- Keep voters assert that there must be sources out there somewhere, yet the sources don't seem to be out there anywhere. I've looked, nominator has looked, and there's just nothing substantial. Reyk _YO! 13:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• No, that is a complete misrepresentation of what I said. I did not claim that sources must be out there somewhere. I expressly claimed to have personally found, seen and read sources that contain significant coverage etc that satisfy GNG. What do you think "I ... accept this satisfies GNG" means? James500 ( talk) 10:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Given your previous antics here and elsewhere, I do not believe you've found anything. I don't believe you've even looked. I think you just indiscriminately vote keep on every AfD you see. Reyk _YO! 13:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Given your previous antics, I'd say that was a bad faith lie, that you have deliberately said something about me that you know to be factually false. You must know, just from looking at the archives of DSLAW to begin with, that I do not !vote in every AfD I see; nor do I !vote indiscriminately. I have a very straightforward standard that I apply consistently: significant coverage is a decent sized paragraph in one source or coverage that adds up to one in multiple sources that do not individually contain significant coverage. You must also know that there is a magazine article cited in Legal Aid Society of Orange County that contains significant coverage: this one. I suspect you know that the other article I referred to above was this one. And you must know that there are other sources that discuss the society if you have looked at GNews and GBooks. If you read the edit notice that appears when you try to edit an AfD, you will notice that it instructs you to comment on the merits of the article and not on other editors. Kindly follow that instruction in future both in this discussion and all other AfDs. James500 ( talk) 11:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• It's good that you've belatedly decided to look for sources just now, even if it took my rather pointed criticism for you to finally do it, but I guess I'm just not as impressed by trivial name drops and run-of-the-mill puff pieces as you are. As for WP:SPADE, no, I think I will continue to speak my mind and call out what I see as duplicitous behaviour in future. If you do not like that, you know the way to WP:ANI. Reyk _YO! 12:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• These false accusations that you are making ought to stop as they constitute a personal attack. You know perfectly well that I was aware of these sources before I !voted (one of them was actually cited in the article, so there is no way that anyone could have failed to be aware of it: your claim to have imagined that I was not aware of it is completely implausible, because even a small child would have immediately realised that was not the case). It is clear to me, from the nature of your comments and our previous history, that the sole purpose of your false comments is to annoy me as much as possible, because you know that I find this kind of nonsense infuriating. James500 ( talk) 19:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Like I said: if you do not like me speaking my mind, ANI is thataway. I don't say things that I don't believe, and if I criticise someone's behaviour it's not because I want to annoy them but because I think their behaviour has genuinely been questionable. If my willingness to indulge bullshit is less than it was, it's from years of being hectored by wikilawyers and ultra-defensive screamers, and I see you doing a lot of that these days. Reyk _YO! 21:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC) reply

James, I get the impression that you attempt to annoy others in Afds, with ludicrous arguments such as snow keep and ineligible for deletion which is clearly not the case. Otherwise it's a case of lacking competency which others have previously raised. A number of editors have expressed concern about your argumentative style but you stubbornly continue. LibStar ( talk) 06:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• LibStar, I get the impression that you and Reyk have for some time been following me around and trying to provoke me by saying very nasty things about me personally, many of which are wholly off topic, since a certain MfD that you started. You certainly followed me to two unrelated RfCs that were improperly advertised there and then (in LibStar's case) to my user talk page. Now you are both 'popping up' over and over again on a deletion sorting list that I normally edit and, as far as I can remember, you don't. The number of editors you refer to is the pair of you and perhaps one other who seem to be seeking, and by the look of all your recent police force AfDs of obvious redirects which you know I am going to see because they are on this deletion sorting list, now engineering, confrontations with me. (You also omit to mention that other editors have commented on your behaviour). I get the impression that your behaviour is an attempt to prosecute The Holy War against non-deletionists. You seem to have a thing against me because I have in the past !voted to keep articles you would like to see deleted, especially a certain article on bilateral relations whose failed AfD was the precursor of the MfD. You would like to drive me out of AfD because I'm not sufficiently deletionist for your taste. Or you would like to silence my opinions because they are different to yours. The accusations you are making against me are obviously not being advanced in good faith because they are too absurd. I would be grateful if you would stop trying to shove deletionism down my throat. Why not just stop making personal attacks and trying to annoy me? Just accept that my opinions about notability are different to yours? Just agree to disagree? You know perfectly well that I have never advanced any argument at AfD that I did not believe to be correct. James500 ( talk) 07:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC) reply

following you around? I was the first person to vote here and you popped up yesterday as the first person to comment on my AfD nomination. Seems like you are following me around. WP:KETTLE if I ever saw it. LibStar ( talk) 08:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• No, I reached this, and the others, via DSLAW. But I don't understand how you suddenly started reaching AfDs on judges, law journals and lawyers. They do not appear on the organisations deletion sorting list from which you could have reached this one. James500 ( talk) 09:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC) reply

and you have a sudden interest in Malaysian galleries? LibStar ( talk) 09:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC) reply

It is on WP:DSLAW because it is the museum of a police force. I did not add it to that deletion sorting list, Necrothesp did. Nor did I argue that the museum should be kept, which puts paid to your accusations of bad faith. I'm sure you know that. How did you get to the AfDs on the Canadian tax judge, the Groningen law journal and the lawyer, nominated by Paperwario, whose name is something like Arkady Bush? James500 ( talk) 09:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC) reply

If you wish to ban LibStar or myself from AfDs that you have edited, go to ANI and propose a topic ban. You seem to be enthusiastic about trying to restrict who can participate at AfD and what they can say, so at least that would be consistent. Nobody who writes ridiculous idiotic bilge like that essay has any right to complain that others are shoving their ideology down his throat. Of course, if you did propose a topic ban you'd have to then explain how LibStar is "following" you to AfDs he edited before you did, or why there's anything wrong with keeping an eye on a hyper-inclusionist editor who has begun trying to invalidate perfectly proper AfDs with a lot of bizarre and erroneous wikilawyering. We wouldn't want anyone to be fooled by it. Reyk _YO! 10:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• (1) DELREF2015 contains no recommendations whatsoever; it is just a brainstorming exercise that lists everything that might conceivably be done ("blue skies thinking"), the merits of which have yet to be investigated even by me. I might end up personally opposing many of those ideas upon further reflection. And an attempt to generate a proposal is not an essay. And, since I have never invoked it at any AfD, or anywhere else, it is not relevant in any way. Nor can I be accused of hypocrisy on the basis of that as I have not and am not now asking you to refrain from drafting or making deletionist proposals for new rules through the proposal process. (2) Having nominated several hundred articles for speedy deletion I could not possibly be called inclusionist, let alone hyper inclusionist. And should LibStar be followed because he is a hyper-deletionist who, amongst other things, persistently erroneously ignores ATD when voting? (3) If I remember correctly, I edited each of the three AfDs I mentioned first, and he could follow me to DSLAW itself, rather than specific AfDs. The ones he edited first seem to be on the organisations list, which I agree adequately explains his presence. The aforementioned three I edited first do not seem to have been on that list though. (4) I have advanced no bizarre or erroneous arguments anywhere at any time. (5) Some of the comments that are being made by LibStar about me are wholly off topic. They have nothing to do even with the merits of my opinions. In fact, some of them could serve no purpose except provocation and to annoy me as much as possible such as [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]. (6) I am not asking anyone to stop editing AfDs. What I expect is a certain level of courtesy that is still not forthcoming at the moment from either of you. That means no false accusations, ad hominems, or other personal attacks or other comments, bearing no relation to the topic in question, whose sole purpose is to be as aggravating as possible. I don't expect you to refrain from !voting in accordance with your opinions, however unfortunate those opinions might be (there being no clear rule against that), I expect you to refrain from being as singularly rude, nasty and unpleasant, to me, as possible, for the sake of it, in the process. James500 ( talk) 19:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC) reply

  TL;DR. Reyk _YO! 19:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Yes James500 , if you don't like my participation ask for a topic ban, you won't have much to stand on given your history of editing and writing the longest responses I've ever seen in afds, as per WP:BLUDGEON. Otherwise I will contribute to AfDs like any editor may. LibStar ( talk) 10:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• BLUDGEON is only an essay and see my comments above. James500 ( talk) 19:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC) reply

it's an essay that perfectly describes you. You consistently try to shout down opposing views with very long responses in afds. It's a deliberate tactic. I'm sure you'll respond with some long winded excuse ridden rant now LibStar ( talk) 05:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC) reply

As I think you are already aware, I do not use any 'tactics' whatsoever anywhere or try to do any such thing. I certainly never 'rant'. If I was becoming angry, my comments would become shorter, not longer. If you must accuse me of something, I think it would have to be either being more intelligent than others (in the sense of having more thoughts to communicate in the first place) or being more diligent (in the sense of giving an adequate explanation when others don't). I don't think my comments are generally particularly verbose and there are many editors who are far more 'long winded', as you put it, than me. I note that you also frequently accuse me of not saying enough, about as often as you accuse me of saying too much, so I don't think you are being consistent either. And I could just as easily argue that your accusations of 'you talk too much' are themselves a deliberate tactic to silence opinions you don't like, or to win arguments by silencing the other side, by stopping the full facts from coming out, by stopping relevant arguments from being advanced (like putting someone on trial but not allowing anyone to speak properly in their defence). James500 ( talk) 13:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC) reply

If I was becoming angry, my comments would become shorter, not longer. Another ludicrous statement. LibStar ( talk) 13:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• (ec) Yeesh, I can't believe my rather innocuous delete !vote was enough to provoke this much yelling. I'm going to disengage now, because the long winded ranting has reached the point of self-parody and nothing productive will come of continuing this conversation; plus, I'm weary of grappling with these immense walls of text. Reyk _YO! 14:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Your !vote wasn't innocuous, it misrepresented something that I said, and you followed that up by attacking me by expressly falsely accusing me of something I had not done (not looking for sources). And you and LibStar have kept adding more attacks in a (largely successful) subtle bid to change the subject from "Reyk, what you said about me was obviously not true, and you must know it wasn't true, so please do the decent thing: withdraw it and apologise". James500 ( talk) 16:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete run-of-the- WP:MILL, WP:ROUTINE announcements, no significant coverage in RS, fails WP:CORPDEPTH Kraxler ( talk) 16:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Just a word about the lengthy discussion above: James500 is probably the foremost ultra-inclusionist active on Wikipedia these days, see his AfD stats (96 keep/speedy keep vs. 2 delete). During the last month he cast a lot of !votes without bolding them (which is required under WP:AFDFORMAT "Usually editors recommend a course of action in bold text") so the bot can't parse them. There were quite a few "keep" votes in AfDs which ended with a verdict of "delete". Kraxler ( talk) 16:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC) reply

well spotted kraxler, James500 is deliberately not bolding votes to avoid detection. And when you add all the other behaviour it certainly adds up. Expect a long winded excuse ridden rant why he doesn't bold. LibStar ( talk) 16:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC) reply

It has already been explained to you elsewhere, LibStar, at great length. And it has no relevance to whether Reyk had any business calling me a liar on strength of no evidence whatsoever. James500 ( talk) 21:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC) reply

@ User:Kraxler: The word "usually" does not imply a requirement. Saying that I am an ultra inclusionist is an invalid ad hominem argument that has nothing to do with the merits of the topic. Saying that my !votes have not always matched the outcomes of AfDs in the past is an invalid ad hominem argument that has nothing to do with the merits of the topic. It is wholly improper to invoke those statistics in an AfD as they have nothing to do with whether this topic satisfies GNG. Nor, for that matter, does it have anything to do with the discussion above. If you read the edit notice that appears when you try to edit an AfD, you'll notice that it says that commenting on another participant, instead of on the merits of the article, is a personal attack and is considered disruptive. James500 ( talk) 20:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Simple question, why don't you bold your votes like every single editor does? LibStar ( talk) 03:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• (1) Every single editor does not do that. You know perfectly well that I explained that on the talk page of the other user who asked. I will not explain twice. (2) This nonsense has continued long enough. Stop making off topic comments. Stop commenting on other editors. You are not supposed to be doing this at AfD. (3) Since I have struck my !vote, you have no reason to communicate with me here again. James500 ( talk) 09:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC) reply

let's see if you can't resist responding again. Remember more words means less angry. LibStar ( talk) 10:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC) reply

RE User:James500: You're mistaken, the bolding is required. I quote again "Usually editors recommend a course of action in bold text" And now let's parse it: "Usually editors recommend a course of action" but sometimes editors only reply to other editors, or post a question, or relist, or close a discussion. The "usually" qualifies that there are other options than to recommend a course of action. And now back to the text "... a course of action in bold text, e. g., "Keep", "Delete", "Merge", "Redirect", "Transclude" or other view. Some bots and tools which parse AfDs will only recognize bolded words, so following this convention is highly recommended.". That means that the "bold text" is inseparable from the course of action recommended. Once you decide to recommend a course of action (like "keep") it should be bolded. Period. The only reason not to do that is to escape bot parsing, as the guideline clearly states. So why do you refuse to do something that is "highly recommended"? Would you like to discuss this at WP:ANI? Kraxler ( talk) 13:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC) reply

well said Kraxler. Deliberately and persistently avoiding community practice may be cause for WP:ANI. LibStar ( talk) 14:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Whatever the size of the museum, or the depth of coverage, not a single !voter has appeared in three weeks to support deletion. A merger of the three museums should be debated on the talk page of any one of them. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 14:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Beauty Museum

Beauty Museum (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP.:ORG . Another tiny museum from malacca that is housed on only one level. The article is based on 2 primary sources. Also nominating in the same building for the same reasons:

• People's Museum

* Kite Museum LibStar ( talk) 16:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep all Malacca is a historic place with lots of museums. These are notable, being documented in detail in sources such as Melaka History and Heritage in Museums. There may be some scope for merger, especially for those which are housed in the same building complex but, per our policies WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE, this would not be done by deletion. Andrew D. ( talk) 10:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

you've recycled this same argument in various afds but fail to show in-depth coverage about these specific museums. WP:PRESERVE does not override if an article is not notable. LibStar ( talk) 11:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

the book reference you've supplied doesn't even appear to even mention this beauty, people's or kite museum, that's what happens when you recycle the same AfD argument over and over again. LibStar ( talk) 15:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• They are all listed on page 86 which discusses the Dutch enclave in Malacca where these museums are co-located. There's perhaps some scope for merger, where they form part of the same complex or building but that's not done by deletion. This is the key point of WP:PRESERVE and our other policies — that we should first look for sensible alternatives to deletion. Andrew D. ( talk) 07:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC) reply