The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 00:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Against the Current (band)

Against the Current (band) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Sending WP:APPNOTE to Sulfurboy. Boleyn ( talk) 18:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete Fails GNG and NBAND. Sulfurboy ( talk) 18:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 18:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 18:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep They meet NBAND #7.-- 88.104.133.69 ( talk) 23:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • — 88.104.133.69 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment How does it meet #7? A key element of #7 is also that they meet guidelines generally and that it can be verified. Boleyn ( talk) 11:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC) reply
    • I meant #4. Sorry.-- 88.104.133.69 ( talk) 14:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Sources Google lists them via knowledge graph at Against The Current Tours via Google They list concert tours on their own website at ATC Official | Tours. On their official site they state have toured in many sovereign countries including but not limited to Thailand,Malaysia,Singapore,Philippines,Japan, and Belgium. They have also had a national tour in the US.-- 88.104.133.69 ( talk) 14:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • — 88.104.133.69 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment The sources I saw at the Google link you provided were adverts or trivial mentions. Having toured several countries is not independently verified, and is not a sign of notability unless it can properly be verified as a national or international tour. Where they performed is relevant to - were they going round local youth clubs, or performing along with many other groups, or was it their own tour of proper venues? Boleyn ( talk) 15:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment I can independently verify that Against The Current are touring in Taiwan [1]. The concert was selling tickets using the iBon machine in 7-11 convenience stores, and is sold out. Apparently the venue can host 1000 people [2]. Special:Contributions/Peterburk~enwiki Peterburk~enwiki ( talk) 9:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • — Peterburk~enwiki ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• TV Appearance. They were featured on TV in Japan. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Mentioned by major label Warner Music Twitter by Warner Music Warner Music Artist Page

I think that fufils NBand #12 -- Iady391 ( talk) 16:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply

— Peterburk~enwiki ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• • Comment Doesn't seem they were the primary subject which is required for 12. Sulfurboy ( talk) 16:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • It seems like they were the co-primary subject along with Taka from One Ok Rock-- Iady391 ( talk) 11:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply

What about this https://twitter.com/snowbirdmusic/status/627392711646031872 or this http://atcsg.peatix.com Iady391 | Talk to me here 13:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep They fulfil NBand # 5 Iady391 | Talk to me here 12:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply

done with first album Iady391 | Talk to me here 20:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete Fails both GNG and NBAND. Regarding the claim to NBAND #4, this requires "non-trivial coverage" of their international tour - the coverage is actually very trivial. Google shows no significant media coverage of the tour (or band) - just adverts and a few reviews on very minor blogs. Regarding the claim to NBAND #5, the band has not "released two or more albums on a major record label." They have released no albums and four EPs (though none of them were released on the major label because, as the article points out, they were only signed in March). Regarding the claim to NBAND #12, while a TV appearance appears to have happened, the Twitter links don't prove the band to be the "featured subject" or prove the appearance was in a "substantial broadcast segment". The Twitter links alone also fail WP:V. N4 ( talk) 03:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC) reply

I have archived the current page at /info/en/?search=User:Iady391/sandbox/ATC which can be reused when their second album is released. Iady391 | Talk to me here 13:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete pure promotion, there's no claim to notability in the article, just another band, the toures were all opening/accompanying other bigger acts, fails all criteria of WP:NBAND, and Facebook and Twitter is not really the kind of sources accepted here. Kraxler ( talk) 19:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 00:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Barbara Massey Rogers

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

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

When searching I was unable to come up with adequate sources to show this persons notability, donating millions doesn't garunee an article.\. I believe she fails GNG, on a second thought added later a redirect to the charity fund might be appropriate. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 23:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}| lambast 01:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}| lambast 01:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Unfortunately there's not much for a more solid article so I think redirect to Jack C. Massey is good with my searches here, here (nothing at News also), here and here showing there's particularly nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 16:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: Well, I have found many other sources. One needs to know where to look. You would be redacting information about her status as a pioneer female corporate board member, large political donations, philanthropy in Palm Beach, etc. Zigzig20s ( talk) 05:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:MILL. It appears that none of what she has done amounts to more than social climbing; lots of people serve on boards, invest, give money, etc., and it's just a way of life. I'd like to have better sourcing per WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV before I'd change my first impression. Bearian ( talk) 13:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Please bear in mind that WP:MILL is merely an essay, and not policy. Edwardx ( talk) 21:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep. She passes WP:GNG. Edwardx ( talk) 21:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Redirect per SwisterTwister. Notability isn't inherited, and it appears that the only thing she's done of note is donate her (father's?) money to various outfits. @ Zigzig20s:: if she is such a pioneer, then you should have placed that information in the page and/or made it more clear. Primefac ( talk) 21:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: User:Primefac: She also served on corporate boards when few women did and has made large political contributions. Also a significant philanthropist in Palm Beach. A mover and shaker of business and Republican politics in the South. Zigzig20s ( talk) 15:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete Not really notable enough to warrant a page. Heyyouoverthere ( talk) 15:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete without a doubt, per Primefac. All coverage is extremely minor and revolves around socialite activities and the value of her house. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete clearly lacks in depth coverage enough to merit an article. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above. This is an article that simply doesn't need a page, W1i2k3i45 ( talk) 17:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per above.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 22:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: Just found that a building is named in her honor: the Barbara Massey Hall on the campus of Belmont University. Zigzig20s ( talk) 23:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Trade (sports)#NHL. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^Talk 01:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC) reply

NHL trade deadline

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

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

Unnecessary list of "major" trades made in the NHL. This information is already covered in each NHL season's transactions page (ex. 2014–15 NHL transactions). This page should be deleted, or alternatively redirected to Trade_(sports)#NHL_2 which has a general description of the NHL's trade deadline. Natg 19 ( talk) 23:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 ( talk) 23:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 ( talk) 23:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 ( talk) 23:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Trade (sports). What constitutes a "major" trade is completely subjective, and therefore, it's better that we just have articles for each individual season that list all of the transactions for that season, which we do have. So if we take all of that information out of the NHL trade deadline article, we're left with barely any content, and nothing that can't be summarized in the article that I'm voting to redirect this one to. -- A guy saved by Jesus ( talk) 00:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Trade (sports)#NHL. The list is redundant to each season's transaction page and the rest is redundant to Trade (sports)#NHL, so there's no need for this. However, this is a plausible search term and we should take readers somewhere that has the information they're looking for. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 20:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Redirect per everybody. Each season's notable trades are listed in that season's own season-specific article, so there's no real need for a complete and comprehensive multiyear-spanning list of every player who ever got traded at all. Bearcat ( talk) 16:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Redirect while this article served a purpose when it was created, it's usefulness has greatly waned in the years that followed. Currently there are 32 articles every year that track NHL team transactions, we really don't need another article to collect this information. Deadman137 ( talk) 05:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 00:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Rodeo Judge (video game)

Rodeo Judge (video game) (  | 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 WP:GNG. First reference is a sound clip of a promotional local radio interview with the creator, second ref is, by admission, a press release. ( talk) 23:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

I am not sure I understand the reasons for this deletion discussion. Wikipedia has specific formats for citations of press releases, yet you are saying press releases are not valid for citations. That is a contradiction. The radio interview was with Scott Mendes, the inventor of the game. It was not a paid for promotion. The radio station contacted him to learn more about the game. He was their guest speaker on a daily radio show. That is an independent source that interviewed Scott and talked about his new game. I have added a few more references, two of which are Wikipedia articles confirming that Rodeo Judge is legit. Regardless if these documents stand up to Wikipedia standard of public opinion or not, this game is out there and in the real world history books. Removing it from Wikipedia does not erase that fact. cyberstarboy

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 04:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Press releases are valid citations but not enough for an article to pass WP:N which calls for non trivial coverage from multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. For obvious reason press releases are not independent. I also don't see how the interview can be said to be independent since it was directly tied to the creator. What you need are things like reviews, critical analysis, etc.-- 65.94.252.40 ( talk) 05:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. -- The1337gamer ( talk) 16:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. ( ?) The sources in the article are either unreliable or are not secondary/independent sources. The topic had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please {{ ping}} me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. –  czar 17:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete Really fails WP:GNG, W1i2k3i45 ( talk) 17:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 00:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply

2017–18 UEFA Europa League

2017–18 UEFA Europa League (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Has been deleted before (I think) as it is WP:TOOSOON and 2017–18 UEFA Champions League was deleted only a few days ago (but this article CSD was declined). Hardly any content. Qed237  (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237  (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment – I have these articles at my sandbox ready for creation when it is time, but I feel it is too soon. Qed237  (talk) 22:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - this is an obvious case of WP:TOOSOON. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 22:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 04:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 04:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - far too soon. Giant Snowman 08:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - per WP:TOOSOON, nothing to say about this iteration of the competition yet. Fenix down ( talk) 10:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - definitely WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was snow keep. A Cecil AfD was closed as keep only yesterday. Maybe try again in a month. ( non-admin closure) Alakzi ( talk) 22:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Cecil (lion)

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

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

Minor notoriety, lasting notability clearly not yet known ( WP:NOTTEMPORARY) RealDealBillMcNeal ( talk) 22:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Please be aware of an earlier deletion discussion [3] 78.147.163.113 ( talk) 22:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Lasting notoriety can not be adequately judged in the short term. So your request may be premature. Martinevans123 ( talk) 22:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep - has possibly become the most famous lion of all time —Мандичка ^YO 😜 22:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep Whatever you think about the whole thing, Cecil has already achieved WP notability due to in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Borock ( talk) 22:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Speedy keep - passed AfD (and moved) just two days ago. Suggest nominator Withdraw it. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 22:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment We have already been through this. Raising this AfD is very possibly disruptive editing. I am considering reporting this to ANI. OP User:RealDealBillMcNeal, please tell us what is different from the previous AfD.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Well, he's become more famous, I guess. Martinevans123 ( talk) 22:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^Talk 01:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Baby announcement

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

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

Edit: On grounds there have been no significant edits since creation 2008 and currently no sources.-- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 21:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• KeepSpeedy procedural keep is indicated since no grounds were stated for deleting the article. See WP:BEFORE. Baby announcements have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, and thus satisfy WP:N. An etiquette book, Miss Manners, a Canadian baby book, another book for couples having a baby, a book for expectant mothers. Not the world's most important subject, but seems to have sources to allow writing an encyclopedic article. Edison ( talk) 22:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep - plenty of coverage of birth announcements, especially in regards to cards and other trendy "reveals" —Мандичка ^YO 😜 22:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep No references does not equal not notable. A quick Google search would have cleared this up. -- Non-Dropframe _talk 22:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep Fits notability guidelines despite the lack of sources. Chuy1530 ( talk) 19:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep - AfD is not for clean-up. Assuming it gets as least three sources, please see WP:BEFORE. Bearian ( talk) 23:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 00:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Chidera okenwa

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

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

Sadly no evidence of notability. She fails WP:NACTOR. Wikic¤l¤gy ^{t@lk to M£} 21:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 04:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 04:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 04:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails NACTOR & GNG. – Davey2010 ^Talk 17:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete One link to a blog does not cut it. Does not meet NACTOR and GNG. I could not find anything in my search but am not an expert in Nigerian cinema. As it stands, looks like a promo for a non-notable actor especially as the blog is titled "Meet the OKENWA'S...A family with unimaginable talents and skills". Cowlibob ( talk) 21:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete obviously as the article rather states it well and my searches found nothing aside from self-generated links. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by DGG per CSD G5 (created by a banned or blocked user in violation of ban or block). ( non-admin closure) • Gene93k ( talk) 20:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

James Darling (actor)

James Darling (actor) (  | 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 created by likely block-evading sock of indeffed user Kbabej. Should be deleted per WP:G5 based on outcome of current SPI. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 04:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 04:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Passes WP:PORNBIO by being the recipient of several well-known and significant industry awards that are not scene-related/ensemble categories. Both the Feminist Porn Award and the Transgender Erotica Awards are well-known/significant. They both have enough mainstream media coverage to pass WP:GNG ( [4], [5], [6], & [7]). Rebecca1990 ( talk) 15:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. If an article qualifies for speedy deletion, and is nominated for speedy deletion, there is no point in also creating an "Articles for deletion" nomination which just gives the speedy deletion as the reason: all that does is waste editors' and administrators' time. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 09:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Daniel Versace

Daniel Versace (  | 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 created by likely block-evading sock of indeffed user Kbabej. Should be deleted per WP:G5 depending on outcome of current SPI. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - fails GNG; can't find any in-depth coverage of him —Мандичка ^YO 😜 22:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 04:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 04:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Note Should be speedy deleted per WP:G5. Was created by a block evading sock of an indeffed user. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 00:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Socio-Economic Profiteering

Socio-Economic Profiteering (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Poorly focused, unsourced essay. NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete Per nom - I was trying to get my head around it while attempting to fix it, but really couldn't get anywhere. ukexpat ( talk) 20:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete Seems to be a description of Price discrimination. -- Savonneux ( talk) 21:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The fact that not a single book appears to mention the topic indicates that it is non- notable, is composed of original research and that the content in relation to the topic is unverifiable.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 21:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 00:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Novoslovnica

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

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

Seemingly non-notable constructed language. Unable to find in-depth coverage. -- Non-Dropframe _talk 19:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• This is a young language, but it has been marked rather highly by the people had aquainted with it. Most of them prefer Cyrillic, however. Though it has only one scientific publication now and references from the rest of interslavic community, its number will encrease. The project is very unique because of its accepted purposes. EASocialist ( talk) 20:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete No academic coverage, no secondary sources, one message board with a post on it. There doesn't appear to be any published books on the topic or evidence that it has been adopted by any sort of community. -- Savonneux ( talk) 21:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - it really should be transliterated as Novoslovnitsa (Новословница), but even that has no article coverage. If the issue is that it's a young language, WP:TOOSOON would apply. Удачи. —Мандичка ^YO 😜 22:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• May be today it is too soon of course... In autumn the new articles will appear. EASocialist ( talk) 05:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment - It's obvious that this article cannot stay, as it is in violation of practically every policy we have ( WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:NFT, WP:RS, WP:COI, WP:SELFCITE, WP:PROMO, etc.). Except for the lack of a single secondary source, even finding primary sources is a problem. A website with a grammar description of the language seems to have vanished, and now grammar tables and the like are hidden in social media like Facebook and VK. Apart from the fact that social media can never be used as sources, the effect is also that this Wikipedia page appears to contain the only grammar overview available on the web. I would find it a pity if it would disappear, therefore I would suggest the author to transfer it to http://wiki.frath.net, a wiki where any conlang can be published. — IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 00:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as A7 & G11 (NAC) SwisterTwister talk 03:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

International Customer Loyalty Programmes

International Customer Loyalty Programmes (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable Surgenski ( talk) 18:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete Per WP:A7 and WP:G11. -- Non-Dropframe _talk 20:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. LibStar ( talk) 16:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanifa Deen

Hanifa Deen (  | 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:AUTHOR. I could not find any indepth coverage of her, passing mentions only. Even her own website does not specify what actual awards she has won LibStar ( talk) 17:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 04:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 04:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• keep Deen gets a shout-out here: [8], a radio interview [9], a book review in a small magazine [10], a book review in a big newspaper [11]. Here: [12] is what a simple google news search on her name turned up. Probably enough to keep the article. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 13:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep I do find evidence of the award and of the short-listed book. The review in The Australian is significant. This is sufficient for notability. The article could use some work. LaMona ( talk) 18:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Plenty coverage about her and her books. (On the nominators comment on what award. [13] Her website says she won "New South Wales Literary Award 1996, Ethnic Affairs Commission") duffbeerforme ( talk) 10:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Article about Deen

Moran, Rod (6 February 1999), "Answering The Call", The West Australian

Laurie, Victoria (22 May 2003), "'Invisible' Muslims now under siege.", The Australian

Reviews or discussion of Broken Bangles

White, Judith (1 May 1998), "Surviving a fatwa is only part of battle", The Australian

Chimonyo, Janet (16 May 1998), "Symbols of suffering", Sydney Morning Herald

Gonis, Anastasia (23 May 1998), "CULTURE CLASH.Broken Bangles", Herald-Sun

"Breaking Free Of Islamic Tradition", Canberra Times, 21 June 1998

Sprogis, Elivira (4 July 1998), "Within The Bounds", Saturday Magazine - Newcastle Herald

Middleton, Julie (20 June 1999), "Lifting Veil on Muslim Women", Sunday Star-Times

"Voices most of us never hear", The Hindu, 3 October 1999

Reviews or discussion of Caravanserai

Carroll, Steven (28 June 2003), "Review - NON FICTION.", The Age

"Tough times for local Muslims", Canberra Times, 10 May 2003

Review of The Crescent and the Pen: The Strange Journey of Taslima Nasreen

Hussein, Shakira (27 January 2007), "Contrary dissident", The Australian

Reviews of The Jihad Seminar

Capp, Fiona (30 August 2008), "The Jihad Seminar - Pick of the week", The Age

Hussein, Shakira (1 October 2008), "Prejudice beyond belief", The Australian

Sexton, Michael (11 October 2008), "Case for the persecution", Sydney Morning Herald

Reviews of Ali Abdul v The King

Richardson, Owen (23 July 2011), "Stories", The Age

Bramley-Moore, Gillian (30 July 2011), "Non-fiction reviews", The Courier-Mail

Ellwood, Carlene (31 July 2011), "Whited out", STM Entertainment Magazine

See also reviews excerted on her site, linked from here. See also Trove [14].

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 00:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply

James Cooper (director)

James Cooper (director) (  | 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:BASIC as the only secondary sources given are blogs and self-published websites. Most sources are WP:PRIMARY listings. Cooper does not appear to meet any of the shortcut criteria of WP:DIRECTOR. McGeddon ( talk) 17:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete as not notable at this time. Kierzek ( talk) 18:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• There seems to be high degree subjectivity in your assessments. The secondary sources are not all "blogs," - they are reputable online magazines (Indiewire, the dailygrowl, erasingclouds, various film festivals.) I personally think, and I know my opinion does not count equally because of the inane hierarchy on wikipedia, that this is a hasty and ill-advised proposal conjured up by an overly zealous wikipedian, who has a track history of just deleting articles just for the hell of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.148.26 ( talk) 18:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• He meets these criteria. "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.148.26 ( talk) 18:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Please refrain from making personal attacks on other users. As you are a key contributor to the article I can understand you will be aggravated that your "work" is being nominated for deletion but it will not help your case and can harm it just state why you believe he meets the criteria. For each criteria, state which ref in the article supports this. Simply stating the article meets it, is not an argument. Cowlibob ( talk) 21:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Certainly doesn't meet WP:DIRECTOR, and most of the other sources are self-published (Daily Growl, erasingclouds). One good source from Pop Matters which is really an album review. I couldn't hunt up any better. That said, article has only just been created, so other sources might be found. Doctorhawkes ( talk) 02:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 04:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• "Do not Delete" - Criterion B ("has been part of a significant exhibition") 150 Best most exciting illustrators by Taschen. Criterion C ("has won significant critical attention") Awards for 206 - a film featuring internationally acclaimed film star, David Oyelowo, which won awards at the International Fashion Film Awards. Criterion C ("has won significant critical attention") Awards for various advertisements from 2014: ICAD Awards - Directing, Web Film (Fionn Regan: Bunkhouse Triptych)2014: Kinsale Shark Awards - Bronze ("Cut the Nonsense - Book about Tables", No Nonsense Insurance, Viral Film) 2014: Kinsal Shark Awards - Nominated - International New Directors Award. Criterion C ("has won significant critical attention") Beautiful as you - written by James Cooper - reached number 40 in the Australian charts. The sheer breath of his work in advertising, film, illustration, and music, and its accompanying recognition by awards juries in all those respective fields makes him of note. I am not quite clear on the distinction between blog and news outlet; there seems to be a fairly blurry line there. I am pretty sure you cannot deny that the sourced material in the article happened - its not like all those blogs were fabricated for the purpose of this wikipedia article. While I understand that IMBD is not a "legitimate" for his credits on Freedom, it is really the only possible source that would confirm his work there - it being one of the only bits of his work that has not been critically acclaimed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.148.26 ( talk) 17:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Criterion B is "has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition"; a 1/150th part of an exhibition does not sound substantial. WP:ANYBIO gives a green light for a subject who has won any "well-known and significant award", but those listed in the article all seem to be redlinks. No source has been provided for the assertion that Cooper co-wrote a top 40 song. WP:BLOGS explains Wikipedia policy on using blogs as sources. -- McGeddon ( talk) 21:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Re: No source has been provided for the assertion that Cooper co-wrote a top 40 song --- I have posted a source that confirms this assertion. It also does not say the awards need to be known within wikipedia; the are awards that are significant and well-known within the industries in which he was working. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.148.26 ( talk) 14:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply

La Jolla Film Festival is a blue link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.148.26 ( talk) 19:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Do not Delete - The following sources in the article are not blogs ----- CNN -- The Irish Times, an irish daily broadsheet newspaper -- Screen Directors Guild of Ireland -- Indiewire, a daily news site for the independent film community -- Indaba, an online punlication run by Interactive Africa.
• There are a grand total of 25 sources for what is a very brief article, 5 of which are reputable, established news sources, others from festival awards sites, the australian music charts, and some of which are from blogs. Please feel free to review them.
• Delete, while the citations show the existence of this director, they do not meet the notability requires as per WP:GNG or WP:DIRECTOR. Of the 24 links (2 point to the same target), the vast majority are either blogs or primary sources, including press releases and bios. Even the CNN link is a pr (the report clearly says "not verified by CNN" at its top), about a non-notable festival. The Urban Film festival citation is about another non-notable festival, and the link doesn't even appear to validate the claim in the article that Cooper's short film was "shortlisted". First, there's not a mention of films being shortlisted; second, in the list of short films I fail to see a film by Cooper. The Irish Times article merely mentions that Cooper entered a film in a contest, hardly notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• If you look more carefully, you will see that James Cooper's film, starring David Oleyewo, is listed. If a film is listed that means it has been shortlisted . . . You cannot just enter films into a festivals - depending on the festival rules, they are either selected by jury, or one submits and then is selected for viewing by a jury. A lot of films are rejected. The Urban Film Festival is notable.
• Also the wikipedia rules state nothing about the secondary sources being unreliable if they are bios. All the secondary sources have to do is back up the claims in the article - if the claims is James Cooper's film was in a festival and the Irish Times presents a preview of the festival in which James Cooper film is listed, then the source has sufficiently backed up the claim. La Jolla Film Festival is notable - the cnn, apparently 'PR" link, explains its importantance in that particular part of the film industry.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). The consensus is to keep the article as its subject passes WP:GNG, having received significant coverage in reliable (or contextually reliable, as indicated by Peterkingiron) sources. North of Eden ( talk) 00:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC) reply

CAFOD

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

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

No indication of notability. This Catholic charity has some coverage in the Independent Catholic News, but practically nothing in other publications. Even that coverage largely does not discuss CAFOD itself in any detail. Huon ( talk) 17:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep Meets WP:GNG. Along with Christian Aid and Tearfund, CAFOD is one of a number of Christian charities discussed for GCSE Religious Studies in the UK ( see page 12). As such, there are quite a few study books describing its work: [15] [16] [17]. Alternatively, there is a chapter in this book (p3-6) analysing its activities and also a section in this book (p172-175) detailing its role in East Timor. Fuebaey ( talk) 03:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 04:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 04:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 04:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Definite keep -- One of the larger UK Aid charities. Since it is the aid organisation of the Cstholic Church, it is inevitable that most of the coverage should be in Catholic media, because that it is where it raises its funds. I would fully echo the references to Christian Aid and Tearfund, which also have a Christian basis. There is an equivalent Muslim charity and of course secular ones like Oxfam. All ought to have articles. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Keep. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

2015 Blackbushe Airport crash

2015 Blackbushe Airport crash (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and General aviation crashes are very common and considered not notable in most cases. ...William 17:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep more than just a "General aviation" crash. Plane involved was a business jet and there are reports of at least four fatalities, making it the deadliest crash in the UK for a number of years - definitely notable. GeorgeGriffiths ( talk) 17:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment - has now been confirmed by police that four people have been killed. GeorgeGriffiths ( talk) 18:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep for now - It is too early to be able to state definitively that this is a non-notable accident in Wikipedia terms. Knowing the provenance of the aircraft, there is a fair chance that Wikinotable people are involved. Should this be the case, then the case for a stand-alone article is proven. Mjroots ( talk) 18:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep per GeorgeGriffiths ( talk · contribs)'s argument -- Pingumeister^{( talk)} 18:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep for now - fatal airline crashes, except for small planes in bad weather etc, tend to be notable as there is typically long-term coverage expected when there is an inquiry. —Мандичка ^YO 😜 22:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep with no prejudice for renomination in a few weeks/months. Per Mjroots. Aircraft has the same registration as the aircraft of Mohammed bin laden in which he died when it crashed in 1967. [18] Two or three close relatives of Osama Bin Laden may have been killed in the crash. [19] The Saudis have confirmed family members were on board. > The cites aren't the best, but I feel that sometimes articles like this are too quickly taken to AfD without thought. Martin451 00:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep for now. With unconfirmed reports that family of Osama bin Laden are among the fatalities and that the incident is still being investigated by the AAIB the crash is likely to gain more notability. -- Lewis Hulbert ( talk) 04:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep Even before the Bin Laden connection, this would have passed WP:GNG. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep Notable victims (if only by family), extra-ordinary crash - modern biz-jet just falling out of the sky (less than a mile from my cousin's house)!!! Not a common event.-- Petebutt ( talk) 12:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 00:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Roxy Olin

Roxy Olin (  | 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 non-notable actress. Notability not derived from father Ken Olin. Quis separabit? 16:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep Plainly passes the general notability guideline. A quick GNews search reveals well more than the minimum amount of significant coverage in reliable sources, stretching from (as far as I can see) 2009 to present day. There was actually an article about her published literally 13 hours ago here (although, granted, it's of the "whatever happened to..." variety :). Her failure to pass the subject-specific notability guideline for actresses is irrelevant if she passes GNG, and in any event that presumes her notability is entirely based on her career as an actress when she is also apparently a socialite. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb 16:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom, Fails GNG. – Davey2010 ^Talk 17:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom almost no independent RS to establish notability. Pincrete ( talk) 17:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete as not notable. Kierzek ( talk) 18:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment Random sampling of independent RS found via simple Google search. MTV.com. New York Magazine. LA Times. People Magazine. I'm curious to know how this fails GNG's simple requirement that a subject be the source of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I suppose the MTV.com source can be discounted as not independent, but the rest have no affiliation with her or the TV shows she has appeared on. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb 21:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 04:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete as not notable. The Google search above does give a couple of pages of hits, but beginning on page 3 they are mostly tangential, non-substantive mentions of her, mostly to do with her friendship with Whitney Port. Of the rest, most are blogs, or aren't independent (e.g. MTV), or again only mention her briefly in relation to something else. Mere mentions do not rise to the criteria of significant coverage. It looks like there is a single good source, the New York Magazine item, which is an in-depth interview. This certainly doesn't meet WP:GNG, her appearance on a reality tv show, and a small role in a single other program don't meet WP:NACTOR. Normally, I'd say this might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but most of these cites are from five or more years ago. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Keep ( non-admin closure). The consensus here is clearly in favor of keeping this article, given its significant coverage in WP:RS and accordant passage of WP:GNG. North of Eden ( talk) 01:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Channel Islands Tunnel

Channel Islands Tunnel (  | 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 not a notable subject. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 15:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Subject is covered independently in multiple reliable sources, so even though it wasn't built it would seem to satisfy the General Notability Guidelines. -- Scjessey ( talk) 18:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 04:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 04:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep: Passes GNG, sources in the fr.wikipedia article as well. Vrac ( talk) 21:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep; has sources; large transportation project proposals are notable. 331dot ( talk) 21:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 00:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply

List of songs recorded by Hopsin

List of songs recorded by Hopsin (  | 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 trivial list, redundant to Hopsin discography. Koala15 ( talk) 15:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin ^Hangout 16:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin ^Hangout 16:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete Trivial listcruft. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Despite being the closer of the previous AFD I can't make any sense of it!, Anyway delete per above - Most songs are either at Hopsin or Hopsin discography. – Davey2010 ^Talk 21:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 04:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Redundant with the other two articles as stated above by Davey2010. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Deb per A7. ( non-admin closure) Everymorning talk 15:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

WIKIX MEDIA

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

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

This article appears like an advertisement. Ayub407 ( talk) 13:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Mass mobilization. ( non-admin closure) Mz7 ( talk) 03:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Political mobilization

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

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

This article seems to be a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Mass mobilization. It also looks like a dictionary article, so WP:NOTDIC is an issue. Ceosad ( talk) 13:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete and/or Redirect to mass mobilization per points raised by nom. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Redirect seems justified. I forgot about that while nominating. Ceosad ( talk) 15:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Mass mobilization. That article is okay, at least about a recognized topic. "Political mobilization" seems to be a more general and vague term, so not exactly the same thing. But redirect is probably more useful to readers than simply delete. Borock ( talk) 15:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was both articles speedily deleted as either copyright violations or blatant hoax.

World Humanity Commission

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

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

United Nations Collaboration for the Economic and Social Development of Africa (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

These articles appear to be part of an elaborate hoax.

There is no indication that the World Humanity Commission is a legitimate worldwide human rights organization, and it has no verifiable connection to the United Nations.

The United Nations Collaboration for the Economic and Social Development of Africa appears to exist only as an entity on LinkedIn. A search for this entity within the United Nations website gives no results, and a general Google search gives no results other than the organization's own LinkedIn profiles. WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 12:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete as a hoax, per nom. -- Richard Yin ( talk) 13:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 00:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Mango B2B

Mango B2B (  | 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:CORP. Sources are primary. The Sun article doesn't appear to exist and the Forbes article doesn't mention this company. Prod removed. Vrac ( talk) 12:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 04:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 04:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 04:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete and draft/userfy if needed as my searches found nothing good and there's nothing to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- It looks like a NN 2-person business to me. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) JAaron95 ^Talk 13:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Tako Natsvlishvili

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

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

Low notability and no real importance with self-advertising and promotional purposes are seen, thus suggest we delete it. Jaqeli 21:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep or at least redirect to NEXT Model Management. I really don't think it's overpromotional, and if so this can be fixed. Young (but stunnning!) model so this would be a case of WP:TOOSOON. She's walked in major shows, and been featured in a lot of Georgian news, particularly talk shows. Unfortunately I can't understand Georgian but it's pretty clear on the shows they are talking about her career. I wouldn't suggest deleting, at least redirect. [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]. No need to delete. —Мандичка ^YO 😜 00:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Leaning keep based on the sources and the nice break-down of her career listed by Мандичка. It all seems to point towards sufficient coverage with enough variety of sources and publications for her to pass general notability. Mabalu ( talk) 12:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Weak Keep per sources found, They're not perfect I'll admit but the videos can be used as sources atleast until something better crops up, Personally I think it needs improving not deleting. – Davey2010 ^Talk 21:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Minimal participation since Cunard's improvements, and I'm not gonna relist a fourth time. I won't object to somebody opening up a fresh discussion on this article in the near future. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 00:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Invoicera

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

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

Poorly sourced article with promotional tone with no third party references!!

• Comment - I completed the nom for IP 121.244.131.238. ansh 666 23:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}| lambast 01:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}| lambast 01:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Weak Delete - Cleaned out all the promo text and added some possible references. Don't see the product passing notability, unless some more suitable refs are found. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 21:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Weak delete and draft/userfy instead - I say this because I acknowledge the sources but they are not even close for significant notability and further emphasized by my searches as the best thing there were the News links shown above and some press releases. SwisterTwister talk 22:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Cozma, Nicole (2012-08-17). "Use Invoicera for free small business invoicing services". CNET. Archived from the original on 2015-07-17. Retrieved 2015-07-17.
  2. Weisbein, Jeff (2012-02-14). "Invoicera Review: Making Invoicing Simple". BestTechie. Archived from the original on 2015-07-17. Retrieved 2015-07-17.
  3. Long, Jonathan (2015-07-10). "5 Online Invoicing Solutions for Business Owners". The Huffington Post. Archived from the original on 2015-07-17. Retrieved 2015-07-17.
  4. Hendricks, Drew (2015-05-26). "10 Online Invoicing Services for Small-Business Owners". Entrepreneur. Archived from the original on 2015-07-17. Retrieved 2015-07-17.
  5. Cravenho, Andrew (2015-05-07). "5 Invoicing and Accounting Tools for New Entrepreneurs". Entrepreneur. Archived from the original on 2015-07-17. Retrieved 2015-07-17.
  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Invoicera to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard ( talk) 05:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - nothing app of no note. Govindaharihari ( talk)

• Your "delete" rationale, a "just not notable" vote, is not supported by Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk) 04:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Weak Delete/Userfy: could be speedy deleted for unambiguous advertising: "Spend time making money, not chasing money!", and/or copyright violation, article is taken straight from here and a few other spots on their website. Vrac ( talk) 23:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Coverage still pretty thin for WP:CORPDEPTH. Vrac ( talk) 04:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Vrac ( talk · contribs), I have rewritten the article. The original version by Nuvarande ( talk · contribs) was neutrally written; the insertion of spam and copyright violations can be traced to these edits by Veronika Tondon ( talk · contribs) in May 2015. Cunard ( talk) 00:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Vrac ( talk · contribs), WP:CORPDEPTH says: "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability."

  I've cited multiple independent sources here to establish notability since the Entrepreneur and The Huffington Post articles include Invoicera in lists. But I think the CNET article and BestTechie are fairly substantial coverage. Would you clarify why you think Invoicera does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH and Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline? Cunard ( talk) 04:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana. Anything worth merging can be found under the history of the article. Randykitty ( talk) 22:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Antares Astronomical Observatory

Antares Astronomical Observatory (  | 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 observatory exists, but I cannot find anything to denote its notability or significance. A small-time observatory by a small-time university. Primefac ( talk) 07:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Merge/Redirect to Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana - the Observatory does not appear to be independently notable. PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 11:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Merge/Redirect to Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana as per above. Fgnievinski ( talk) 22:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Meek Mill#Dream Chasers Records. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 13:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Lil Snupe

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

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

Completely unsourced biography of a rapper, with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC as his only releases were mixtapes. This is extremely poorly written, further — I can't, for example, make heads or tails of what the article is even trying to say about why Sean Combs is linked in it. As always, a Wikipedia article is not something that any musician — living or dead, rapper or rocker or country star or whatever — is automatically entitled to have just because he existed; it's something that a musician earns by being the subject of enough coverage in reliable sources to verify that they pass one or more of the notability criteria in NMUSIC, but this article fails to provide any evidence that its subject does so. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 17:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 01:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 01:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Meek_Mill#Dream_Chasers_Records per the previous discussion, As he's already mentioned there it makes more sense to redirect than delete IMHO – Davey2010 ^Talk 00:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Davey2010 Per my comment below about the salting, would you agree? SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC) reply

SwisterTwister - Unless it's been recreated 3 or times then I don't usually go for Salting but If you and the closing admin prefer salting then I don't mind, Thanks, – Davey2010 ^Talk 12:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Insufficient coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability under WP:GNG. Fails WP:NMUSIC. - SummerPhD ^v2.0 15:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Redirect and salt and possibly edit lock if started again as my searches found nothing to suggest improvement and notability here and here. The most notable thing was he got a deal but was killed, there's nothing more to add. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC) reply

After looking at this, it seems sensible enough to salt as there's nothing more to add and if there's ever the marginal chance, it can be unprotected but for the meantime, no. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 01:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Liam Johnson

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

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

Doesn't seem to have made his first grade debut yet, so fails WP:RLN Mattlore ( talk) 20:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete Fails WP:RLN and WP:GNG. J Mo 101 ( talk) 18:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep Passes WP:GNG. Several independent and reliable sources describe his activities at Huddersfield Giants, adding up to quite a significant amount of cover. Here are some online examples: [33], [34], [35], [36], [37] from the result pages of this search. Speccy4Eyes ( talk) 20:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • @ Speccy4Eyes: That's all routine coverage and so fails GNG. A subject needs significant coverage where they are actually the subject of the article (not mentioned in passing). I see he was called into a Super League squad, is there any news sources out there reporting that he has actually played for Huddersfield's first-grade team yet? Because if there is then he'll meet WP:RLN (although the article may still be deleted, because WP:RLN is about assumed notability, and GNG actually establishes it). -- Shudde ^talk 02:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete -- Speccy4Eyes has not been able to help me here, and I can't find anything to warrant including this biography under WP:GNG or WP:RLN. May well change in the future, so this could easily be a case of WP:TOOSOON. But at the moment nothing in policy to warrant a keep vote. -- Shudde ^talk 08:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Shudde, I am sorry, I didn't realise that you were waiting for me to respond. Johnson was the captain of the England youth team. and has a page dedicated to him on the Giants website here. He has received significanrt coverage, including being the subject, or one of the main subjects, of many media articles. Please see these: [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]. I hope, after seeing these, that you will reconsider your verdict. Speccy4Eyes ( talk) 20:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - as per the rationale explained by Shudde above. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but time will tell on that. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Plenty of shaky arguments on both sides of the fence here, but we're obviously not going to form a consensus for deletion. Interested editors are encouraged to discuss content improvements (and a potential merge?) on the article's talk page. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 01:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Planned Battle of Mosul (2015)

Planned Battle of Mosul (2015) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:CRYSTALBALL. title misleading, suggests event going to happen. Offensive threats could be part of Psychological operations or based on mere speculation and rumors. Numerous sources say such offensive not possible any time soon (Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) LimitationsAndRestrictions495656778774 ( talk) 19:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Rfc @ Bender235 and George Ho:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep per previous AfD (at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Mosul (2015)). I do see where the nominator is coming from, but there does seem to be enough coverage about this in reliable sources to merit an article of some sort. If consensus is not to keep this time around, I'd suggest a merge into a timeline article, to be split back out when/if the actual battle commences. ansh 666 01:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• keep There is actual evidence that the thing has already started. Ericl ( talk) 17:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment Article has inspired other WP:CRYSTALBALLs such as Ericl ( talk · contribs)'s Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Summer 2015 Invasion of Syria. G8j!qKb ( talk) 17:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I'm lean a little more permissive than I probably should on crystalball grounds when its clear that we will, eventually, have a legitimate article. But I'm not willing to extend that permissiveness to discrete military actions. The difficulties in planning and executing an attack on ISIL positions in Mosul is certainly noteworthy, to the extent that it's discussed in cited sources. A (markedly trimmed) discussion of these logistical difficulties belongs (if its not already there; I'll admit that I didn't look closely) in Military intervention against ISIL. But battles are discrete events; this one hasn't happened yet, and I my reading of our "future events" guidelines just doesn't give me faith that the corresponding article should happen yet, either. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 17:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. An encyclopedia has articles about what happened, not what might happen. -- bender235 ( talk) 18:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment Nom has added a huge amount of {{ citation needed}} templates, possibly to make the article look bad. I'm not saying that is necessarily the case and I know we should assume good faith, but that kind of behavior at the same time as nominating it for deletion seems like a move to get more delete votes. Dustin  (talk) 19:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, but planned offensives widely discussed in the media and reliably sourced can surely be notable. North of Eden ( talk) 02:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep Substancial media attention. Thanks. Ism schism ( talk) 18:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep - per the sources in the Planning and delays section. It's not WP:CRYSTALBALL, which is for something like, 2021 NCAA Tennis Championships. —Мандичка ^YO 😜 13:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment I think that the title is ungainly but don't know if alternatives such as Mosul as a coalition target are any better. Greg Kaye 16:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Merge with Mosul offensive (2015) Note was linked here from this post, not the second listing. Note similarities in topics and content (in particular first non-lead section). Banak ( talk) 17:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete or merge. EkoGraf ( talk) 06:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep but change title to Planned battle for Mosul (2015). Although, perhaps, the title proposed may be likely used, we cannot know that any encounter will be given a specific name before the event.

See: Planned Invasion navigation page and pages beginning "Planned ..." Greg Kaye 11:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

@ GregKaye: In response to your new title suggestion, how do you know/which source claims offensive for retake requires only one battle? Which source says it will take place in 2015? LimitationsAndRestrictions495656778774 ( talk) 15:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Merge with Mosul offensive (2015) The article as it is does not seem notable to me. An article on the battle should be created if Mosul is retaken from ISIS, but not before. Xwejnusgozo ( talk) 20:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep - Per the Planning and delays section, as it is not WP:CRYSTALBALL. Also, the current title is kind of weird, and should be moved back to Battle of Mosul (2015). It's like an Operation Overlord in planning, and just because it has been pushed back for at for over 7 months doesn't mean that it won't happen. Also, this event is going to have major implications, and just the preparations and events that have happened so far already make this article notable enough to keep. LightandDark2000 ( talk) 08:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: LightandDark2000 is article creator. @ LightandDark2000: how do you know/which source claims offensive for retake requires only one battle? Which source says it will take place in 2015? Battles are discrete events and this one hasn't happened yet. LimitationsAndRestrictions495656778774 ( talk) 09:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply

There are sources saying that the US (not to mention Iraq) planned it for 2015. A few quote US Commanders as saying that it may have to be pushed back to 2016, but those sources are not included. By the way, nearly everything in the article is already sourced (with a few exceptions in the lead and the Background paragraph), usually by the order of one source per small paragraph or event. LightandDark2000 ( talk) 10:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep: The title is backed by several reliable sources. The article needs a requested move rather than an AFD. Mhhossein ( talk) 13:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to John Walsh (filmmaker). ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 13:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Prime Ministers Global Fellowship documentary

Prime Ministers Global Fellowship documentary (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Part of a series of articles being created by this editor for the work of John Walsh (filmmaker), I can find no evidence that this 30-minute doc meets WP:NFILM or WP:TVSHOW. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

• After being deleted, we can redirect to the John Walsh article. Though this 2009 documentary film lacks the coverage or commentary to meet WP:NF and merit a separate article of its own, we can at least send readers to the one location where it might be mentioned. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• REdirect as suggested. I doubt we need an article about a TV programme that has sunk without a trace after its first broadcast 6 years ago. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Somebody can recreate it as a redirect if they want. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 01:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Suicide chicken

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

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

Wikipedia is not news. I dream of horses ( T) @ 04:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Please let's read WP:NOTNEWS to see if it says we shouldn't include new referents:

"As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events."

Therefore, we should include new referents.

"However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Ensure that Wikipedia articles are not:"

We should check each of these to see if they apply.

"Journalism. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source. However, our sister projects Wikisource and Wikinews do exactly that, and are intended to be primary sources. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information. Wikipedia is also not written in news style."

This does not apply because it's not first-hand news or acting as a primary source.

"News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information."

The other articles in this category, /info/en/?search=Category:Animal-borne_bombs demonstrate the enduring notability of such referents. This is not "routine news reporting" or anything like an announcement, sports, or celebrities.

"Who's who. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic."

Clearly does not apply.

"A diary. Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every match played, goal scored or hand shaken is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person."

Clearly does not apply.

Please understand the reasons behind the WP:NOTNEWS guideline and do not believe that it means that Wikipedia has to wait until something is old to include it in the encyclopedia. Chrisrus ( talk) 13:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete Despite showing impressive cut-and-paste skills, I don't believe Chrisrus's answer properly "considers the enduring notability of persons and events". Just because some animal-borne bombs are notable doesn't mean they all are. I read about some kids who strapped a firecracker to a cat; it doesn't have a Wikipedia page. At most this deserves a mention in one of the myriad other relevant articles on the specific conflict or the subject of animal bombs. But there's no indication it's beyond a simple "gee something strange has happened somewhere just now!" news report, published one day and forgotten the next - if it wasn't for the link to ISIS/ISIL/Daesh it would be a perfect example of the silly season. Colapeninsula ( talk) 14:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • First, please explain what you meant by my "cut-and-paste" skills. How was I supposed to demonstrate that WP:NOTNEWS does not apply to this case without quoting directly from the guideline? I didn't just quote it, I also pointed out how each item does not apply so I did more than simply cut-and-paste. Your argument also contains a quotation seemingly cut and pasted. Quoting a relevant rule or guideline is what you are supposed to do in such contexts, so please strike-through that portion of your argument as irrelevant.
  • The analogy is not relevant. Animal-borne bomb refers to those with a military purpose, all of which have their own articles on Wikipedia even if they are never used in war, as long as they can be reliably sourced. The fact that you personally know of some kids who strapped a firecracker to a cat is not relevant.
  • Finally, yes, it does seem a silly thing at first, but ISIS is not silly, no bomb that works is silly, no sign that ISIS is insane, desperate, or out of ways to deliver their bombs is silly. This is not as silly or frivolous as it may seem so it's wrong to delete this article on the grounds that it's silly. Chrisrus ( talk) 15:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Dolphin bombs don't have a separate article; they're a sentence in Animal-borne bomb attacks ( Military dolphin is largely about their use in mine detection). This deserves similar treatment. Colapeninsula ( talk) 17:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC) reply

And I don't consider quoting a large chunk of guideline and then appending "Clearly does not apply" really contributes to anything. Clearly the original deletion proposal was rather terse, but the relevant section of the guidelines should be obvious. Colapeninsula ( talk) 17:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Reliability of sources is also a factor. The Daily Mail is included in Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources, and I've no idea about the bona fides of the other sources: one Jordanian, one Afghan, neither with first-hand evidence. None of the source articles seem to be very certain that the suicide chickens even exist. While you insist this is serious business, they're more interested in making puns than establishing the facts. Colapeninsula ( talk) 17:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC) reply

@Colapninsula, military dolphins which plant mines are in this category, but some clear them and do other things. That's not the situation with chickens.

It was showing that WP:NOTNEWS does not apply. This objection is not relevant.

I found many sources for this, but thought these three would be enough. I will add more from different countries. Let me know when you're been convinced so I can stop. Chrisrus ( talk) 00:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Chrisrus ( talk) 00:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Animal-borne bomb attacks. Believe it or not, there has been a aurprising amount of such instances (usually donkeys). E.M.Gregory ( talk) 11:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Did you see the qualifier even the DM put on the story: "although their authenticity could not be verified" -  Mnnlaxer |  talk |  stalk 21:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Redirect per E.M.Gregory. Note that the title is misleading – there's no suggestion that such chickens are intentionally killing themselves for the cause. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 12:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC) reply

The DM has an even more unreliable source for its article, The Daily Star. -  Mnnlaxer |  talk |  stalk 21:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Redirect per E.M. Gregory, seems a potentially valid search term but not worthy of an article itself per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:GNG. What information about the subject that is available in WP:RS could be included elsewhere (such as Animal-borne bomb attacks as suggested above). Anotherclown ( talk) 23:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• LOL, you gotta love the idea of a suicide chicken. But, seriously, folks, it may be absurd to strap ammo to a bucket of KFC, but you gotta admit that as a bunch of geniuses are strapping bombs to chickens and mules and whatnot you have to keep that page. SummerSchool55 ( talk) 15:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete It has to actually be a thing before it gets even a redirect. The Daily Mail doesn't care if this is real or not. It's great copy. The other two sources in the article are derivative of the Daily Mail piece (of ...). I would be shocked if there was an independent RS that corroborates this story. It clearly doesn't satisfy WP:GNG, which even redirects need to adhere to. Not that I don't appreciate the humor: "Once the chickens are successfully within striking distance without having aroused suspicion" Come on! A couple of big white things and a remote control strapped to a chicken wouldn't arouse suspicion? And I love the qualifier at the end of the first sentence, the passive "it has been claimed." Solid sourcing there! Chrisrus, I hope you are just objecting for giggles. -  Mnnlaxer |  talk |  stalk 21:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. No reason for a redirect, with about 100 monthly views (probably consequential to the Daily coverage). If you're worried about the representation of chickens in Animal-borne bomb attacks please add one sentence to that article and use The Mail's reference. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events" and I've considered it. Tabloids, apparently the Daily Star in this case, publish weird stuff like this all the time and other sources with nothing else to fill space re-report it. We would only be slightly more or less accurate if we accepted Weekly World News as a source. - Location ( talk) 21:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 01:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Ranjeet Baral

Ranjeet Baral (  | 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. Very promotional in tone, edited by single editor from new. Having a range of jobs (itself not uncommon for many medical professionals) or using new techniques is not sufficient for a doctor to be on Wikipedia IMHO. kashmiri ^TALK 23:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC) reply

"using new techniques is not sufficient for a doctor to be on Wikipedia" the article never mentions the use of any "new" technique but being the first doctor to introduce a special "diagnosis device" in Nepal for diagnosing an impending heart attack. ^[1] Dr. Baral is known for representing the 2012 London Olympics as team doctor, representing the doctors for the medical commission of Nepal Olympic Committee. ^{[2] [3] [4] [5]} Dblama ^TALK

Sources in books/journals ^{[6] [7] [8]}, 9 July 2015 (UTC)