Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_June_15 References

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 14 June	16 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. JohnCD ( talk) 22:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply

2017 UEFA Super Cup

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

WP:TOOSOON, there are exactly 0 details about this tournament, because it isn't for 2 years. Also, WP:CRYSTAL, since it's not officially even been announced it will happen. Joseph2302 ( talk) 22:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly
HMSSolent)}| lambast 00:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom - there's no apparent reason for an annual match to have an article so early. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - per nom, WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. This article is not needed yet. Qed237 (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL. Fenix down ( talk) 15:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence of notability, fails WP:CRYSTAL. Giant Snowman 18:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - match has not been confirmed resulting in the article failing WP:CRYSTAL. TheGRVOfLightning ( talk) 02:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - Way too soon. – Davey2010^Talk 00:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per SK1 ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010^Talk 00:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Raj Barr-Kumar

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

Subject does not appear to have received non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. Steps were taken to locate such sources WP:BEFORE this nomination but were not successful. Recommending deletion until said coverage is evident. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 ( talk) 21:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

---Regarding Nomination for Deletion---

Vote: Keep

I just created this article a couple days ago. I haven't even finished building it (hence the Construction Template) and it has been nominated for deletion.

I would argue that Barr qualifies as an individual of significant noteworthiness to merit a Wikipedia article.

Reasons for Noteworthiness:

1.) Fellow of the American Institute of Architects

2.) Former president of the American Institute of Architects and first person of non-European origin to hold that post in the organization's 140 year history

3.) Possibly the best know American architect of Sri Lankan decent

4.) 30 year history as a collegiate educator with a number of published works

5.) Noteworthiness as architect of record on a large number of projects in the US and internationally (I was still in the process of building the section of completed works when the article was nominated.)

Best,

Bmhs823 ( talk) 22:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Added additional primary and third-party sources. Yamaguchi先生's search for sources/information appears to have been cursory at best.

Bmhs823 ( talk) 00:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

I've added a number of references from various publications since the original nomination for deletion. I am now removing the construction template. While additional expansion of the article is desirable, I believe there are now enough references that the article can stand on its own.

Bmhs823 ( talk) 16:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep. Presidency of AIA should be enough. — David Eppstein ( talk) 03:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn. The sourcing is more than sufficient at this time in my opinion, thank you Bmhs823 for your contributions. If there are no objections this AFD may be closed at any time. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 ( talk) 18:12, 18 June 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. JohnCD ( talk) 22:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Omen Phaze

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

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Most of the references don't even mention him, and ones that do are a page selling a book of his and a page offering some of his work for download. I have searched for information about him, and found Twitter, Facebook, his own web site (omenphaze.com), YouTube, his personal page on the website of a college, more download pages, etc, but nothing resembling the sort of coverage in independent reliable sources that would satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

(Note: The article was created by an editor with the username "Omenphaze", clearly with a conflict of interest. A PROD was removed from the article without explanation, by an editor using an IP address from a range which has a history of numerous edits to this article and to a now deleted userpage of Omenphaze, and at least one of those IP addresses has used the first person "I" and "my" in referring to Omenphaze's user page.) The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 21:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly
HMSSolent)}| lambast 00:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly
HMSSolent)}| lambast 00:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly
HMSSolent)}| lambast 00:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. I don't see how this artist's 4 self published albums and book are claims of significance or importance or amount to any criteria of WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSICBIO. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 05:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - My searches found no good third-party coverage to suggest independent notability and there's no target for moving elsewhere. SwisterTwister talk 04:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete. Unable to find any sources providing notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. APerson ( talk!) 17:41, 22 June 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. An article will be welcome after he has actually made his professional debut, but "he definitely will" is not enough. JohnCD ( talk) 22:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Ryan Sellers

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

Contested PROD. Has not played first team football in a fully professional league yet. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL.. WP:TOOSOON JMHamo ( talk) 19:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo ( talk) 19:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Okay. Delete the article now and then I'll re-post it in seven weeks' time, when the new Football League season commences (when Sellers will begin his career as a professional footballer with Wycombe Wanderers).

I have copied and pasted the source content for the Ryan Sellers page into a word document, ready for early-August, when the 2015–16 Football League Two season begins. Reduolf13 ( talk) 20:38, 15 June 2015 (BST)

I really don't think there'll be many people debating this deletion, mate. So by all means, delete it. Sellers is only 7 weeks away from making his professional debut, but if it's a problem then that's fair enough. Reduolf13 ( talk) 20:47, 15 June 2015 (BST)

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Speculation as to future appearances is never grounds for notability. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 22:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Can be recreated in a couple of months at the earliest when (if) he makes his fully professional competitive debut. Fenix down ( talk) 15:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan ( talk) 00:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Week Keep - I understand that he has not played any competitive games as of now but I think this article can be preserved for the future because he will definitely make debut his debut during the season. Sammanhumagain^t@lk 17:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment - who says definitely? How does your comment align to WP:CRYSTAL? Fenix down ( talk) 17:35, 18 June 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. JohnCD ( talk) 22:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply

University of Limerick Debating Union

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

Doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability for over 7 years; was prodded but restored at request of someone who seems to have a coi. Might be worth at best a redirect to University of Limerick, or a merge of a sentence or two. Boleyn ( talk) 19:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete: another non-notable university society without and significant coverage in WP:RS. ww2censor ( talk) 16:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete fails WP:ORG. of zero encyclopaedic value for people outside the university. LibStar ( talk) 05:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete. Unable to find any sources establishing notability. Fails WP:GNG. APerson ( talk!) 17:42, 22 June 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. JohnCD ( talk) 22:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply

The Three Sisters Road

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

Unsourced orphan of a page about a road that doesn't seem to meet any notability guideline including GNG 3gg5amp1e ( talk) 18:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

delete There are several three sisters roads, but didn't see anything notable about an of them. Staszek Lem ( talk) 20:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. If anyone wants to research the road and write a well sourced article it can always be recreated later. Charles ( talk) 21:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - My searches found no good results aside from this and there's no good target for moving elsewhere. SwisterTwister talk 04:45, 18 June 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. JohnCD ( talk) 22:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Talha Asmal

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

Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_for_only_one_event Amortias ( T)( C) 18:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

del nn. Staszek Lem ( talk) 20:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. Even with sources, this person would clearly be notable for only one event. {{ Nihiltres| talk| edits}} 16:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete. Unable to find any sources establishing notability. Not only does he fail WP:GNG, he also is covered under WP:BLP1E. APerson ( talk!) 17:44, 22 June 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. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild ( talk) 18:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Plebs Association of Law Teachers

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:

{{subst:
spa|username}}

; suspected canvassed users:

{{subst:
canvassed|username}}

; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry:

{{subst:
csm|username}}

or

{{subst:
csp|username}}

.

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

Article PRODded with reason "Just founded organization. Amateurish website. No indication whatsoever of any notability. Only independent source in the article goes to the homepage of a similar organization, which does not mention this one. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG." DePRODded by IP without reason given, also removing the organization's URL from the article (apparently in reaction to the PROD). Frankly, this article and the associated website evoke parallels with predatory open access publishing... In any case, the PROD reason still stands, this fails all notability criteria. Hence: Delete. Randykitty ( talk) 18:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - As the requestor stated, the website seems entirely new and lacks in any kind of information. Not to mention the lack of any coverage on notable and reliable sources. Qasaur ( talk) 18:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete no indepemndent sources. Staszek Lem ( talk) 20:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete: Fails GNG and iRS. Besides, plebs get to appoint the tribunes, so they have enough representation here in the Roman Republic. Hithladaeus ( talk) 01:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Speedy Keep: In India there is no old institutions are of recent origins and it is to be kept because it is a developing nation and not developed as other developed countries have century old literature and give opportunity with suggested changes. Deleting will discourage the contributor and moreover it is not advertisement because it is non profitable institution. 103.248.116.222 ( talk) 05:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC) — 103.248.116.222 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Comment Your !vote is not based in policy and will therefore likely be ignored by the closing admin. Please familiarize yourself with our inclusion criteria ( WP:GNG and WP:ORG). Please aslo note that it is not necessary to be for profit in order to be promotional (although in the present case, when I look at the organization's website, I cannot shed the impression that this is just a new way to entice people to pay for publishing in yet another forgettable OA journal...) -- Randykitty ( talk) 08:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Speedy Keep: In India it is necessary to know about such institution and Journal 117.198.143.238 ( talk) 14:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC) — 117.198.143.238 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete, does not meet WP:NONPROFIT, no coverage, let alone significant, from google search. (May be a case of WP:TOOSOON?, even org's website mentioned in infobox/external links is undeveloped). Coolabahapple ( talk) 17:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - Per all the above. Organization is not mentioned on any other sites I could find, and the website seems very recent. Pax Verbum 02:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Speedy Keep: This phrase is unique and significant. 117.251.115.19 ( talk) 04:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC) — 117.251.115.19 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Perhaps you're at the wrong AfD, this is about an organization, not a phrase... -- Randykitty ( talk) 07:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep: The Plebs Journal of Law has title issued by Government of India under the aegis of Plebs Association of Law Teachers and only criterion of longer time period is wrong it will be old as time never stops and every minute, every hour it is getting old. Website will be also mature one with pace of time. 117.245.196.68 ( talk) 04:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete If the website will be mature with time, come back then and if it satisfies WP:N or WP:V then, we'll see. Otherwise, it isn't notable as of yet. If it was a government run organisation, it could have been kept, but we can't have an article on every NGO, can we? -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 05:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete. Unable to find sources to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG. APerson ( talk!) 17:44, 22 June 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.

R. A. B. Dikko

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

The result was Speedy Keep. Nomination withdrawn ( Non-admin closure). Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply

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

Unsourced orphan that doesn't seem to meet the GNG 3gg5amp1e ( talk) 18:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep. First, being an orphan does not automatically qualify an article for deletion. The subject also does seem to satisfy GNG, since I was able to find multiple books which seem to provide enough coverage for at least a decent stub. I would also recommend that you read WP:BEFORE. -- Biblio worm 02:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep:- Clearly notable. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Withdrawn Thanks User:Biblioworm, I didn't find much in my https://www.google.com/search?as_eq=wikipedia&q=%22R.+A.+B.+Dikko%22&num=20 search except for blogs, wikis, social websites, passing mentions, and something that appears to be about someone else. 3gg5amp1e ( talk) 11:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild ( talk) 18:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Isobel Heyworth

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG. Plenty of the usual music directory entries and one 2005 album review but nothing more. Most of what is said in the article has been unsourced for years and I suspect either promo or fan involvement. Sitush ( talk) 00:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 7. — ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - fails notability. Doesn't seem like she went anywhere. Interview here from 2005, but nothing else, and her website is no more —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment. Looks borderline but I am inclined to keep here. We have an Allmusic bio already cited, the two sources identified above, and also a Manchester Evening News album review. Enough to have a well-enough sourced short article, and Googling is unlikely to find every piece of coverage that's out there. -- Michig ( talk) 06:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply

FWIW, I live in Manchester and the MEN comes out with a lot of regurgitated press releases like that. It used to be a decent newspaper, back in the 1970s, and has been going downhill for years. - Sitush ( talk) 06:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 17:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

del fails WP:MUSIC. Staszek Lem ( talk) 20:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - Unfortunately, I also have to agree with deleting because there's no good coverage even in the slightest with my searches finding the best here (not sure if this is her?) and here (one Contactmusic.com link). There's also no good target for moving elsewhere. SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild ( talk) 18:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply

2015 Virginia Beach City FC season

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

This is a season article that fails WP:NSEASONS. Prod was removed by the creator who said that "We have plenty of season articles not in the top division." This is true: if you check out Template:2014 in American soccer, for example, you can see that we have season articles for MLS (top tier), NASL (second tier), and USL Pro (third tier) of the American soccer pyramid. However, Virginia Beach City FC plays in the National Premier Soccer League, a developmental league that isn't officially on the pyramid (although usually referred to as a "4th tier" league). It has been established by other AFDs that teams in the NPSL aren't notable enough for season articles, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 D.C. United U-23 season and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 FC Buffalo season. Due to this, I am proposing this article be deleted. Tavix | Talk 17:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Tavix | Talk 17:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Tavix | Talk 17:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep: I have removed the proposal because several team season articles not in the 'top division' exist. You don't see people proposing to delete York City FC seasons. VB City is no exception. Quidster4040 (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC) We might as well delete every NASL, Football League Championship, 2. Bundesliga team season article since they are "not in a top division season", further the NPSL is sanctioned by the USSF. Quidster4040 ( talk) 01:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - no evidence of notability, fails WP:NSEASONS, plays at too low a level to merit incusion. Giant Snowman 18:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - fails WP:NSEASONS. Quidster4040 seems to have misread this guideline which specifically mentions top "professional" leagues. All the leagues he mentions in his fallacious argument above are fully professional leagues, so are fine per NSEASONS and consensus in previous AfDs, which has established per here (with links in the nom to other historical examples), here and here from discussions in the last couple of weeks alone that only leagues in fully professional leagues are sufficiently notable to inherently justify a season article, with it following therefore that those outside this criterion must fulfill GNG through sourced prose. The National Premier Soccer League is not fully pro, nor is it the top professional league in the US, and there is no evidence that the club's season has garnered sufficient significant, reliable coverage outside of routine match reportiong to satisfy GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 08:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Fenix down: You can also read the WP:NSEASON guideline and put emphasis on "top" professional leagues, which is what I believe he was getting at. If you take that literally, only the top league would be notable enough for a season article (ie: MLS). I do think it could use a tweak (maybe substituting the word "top" for "fully" or something along those lines) so people don't misread it so easily. Tavix| Talk 15:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment To be fair, WP:NSEASONS clearly says professional, not "fully professional" which is explicitly used elsewhere in notability standards. Nfitz ( talk) 06:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment - but a wider consensus has been built around that which goes beyond. It would be useful to have clarification in the guideline though. Fenix down ( talk) 07:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment - well that may be true, the claim it fails WP:NSEASONS itself is false. Nfitz ( talk) 14:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild ( talk) 18:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Jade Tailor

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

autobiography of a non-notable actor whose greatest achievements are a bit parts in a couple of TV series. The Dissident Aggressor 16:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

del no independent evidence of notability. Staszek Lem ( talk) 20:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete for now and possibly userfy if needed - My searches found no coverage about her and this isn't surprising as she's hasn't had much work muchless cause for independent notability. I would've suggested moving elsewhere but there's no good target aside from Aquarius (though only two episodes so far). SwisterTwister talk 22:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 00:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Drummond Rennie

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

This biographical article was created by a now-blocked sock, has an apparent COI problem, and it's bloated with promotional language and resume-like content. This was prodded, understandably. But initial searches turn up some substantial coverage of his work as deputy editor of JAMA (examples: [1] [2], and he won the AAAS Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility for his career efforts on behalf of scientific integrity. [3] So I think it's better that this gets the more detailed scrutiny of AfD. I'm currently undecided about this, and would especially like to hear opinions from editors experienced in the medical area. Arxiloxos ( talk) 16:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete as PROD'er mentioned above. Stuartyeates ( talk) 22:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep. The irony of a person involved in publishing ethics getting a spam article notwithstanding, I cleaned it up. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 06:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep Thanks to Opabinia regalis this now reads like a perfectly good article for a notable academic. Thanks. LaMona ( talk) 05:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep Notable academic; spam issues now resolved. DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 19:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. This is the editor's second hoax article so I'm indefing them. This may be related to past blocked accounts so I'll see if I can find any evidence for this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Blair Witch III (Film)

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

Without references, there's no way to know if this is real or made up. Lack of neutral tone when discussing previous film suggests an overzealous fan. Does not meet WP:GNG. ubiquity ( talk) 16:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete Fails WP:NFF and WP:V. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete Obvious "troll" article.-- MrChristensen ( talk) 19:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete: Hasn't this been done before? I seem to recall this being a favorite bauble for troll creation in the past -- perhaps with slight variations in name or deletion by speedy. (I think it was "The Blair Witch Project 2" and "II." In any case, no such film. Hithladaeus ( talk) 01:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - Although a browser search (among other searches such as News and Books) finds some links, it's not significant and notable therefore no possible improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 18 June 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. JohnCD ( talk) 16:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Elon Fellows

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

This appears to be a press release, all references are affiliated. Orphan. Has been tagged for over four years. May not be notable. valereee ( talk) 15:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete Not notable. The only secondary source I could find was the student paper - not enough. The other sources are all primary (press releases or the university website). Nwlaw63 ( talk) 15:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete I did a quick search and found it listed in a number of sites for grants and fellowships, but those are simple directories and I presume they do not confer notability. I can't find anything actually written about it. There are many tens of thousands of fellowships available in the US and elsewhere, so just being a fellowship is not enough for notability. LaMona ( talk) 19:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:29, 16 June 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. JohnCD ( talk) 15:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Elizabeth Cooper (missing person)

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

Apparently minor WP:NOTNEWS from September 2014; a man breached parole and was thought to have left town with his ex-wife, the subject of this article. There has been no apparent news coverage of this person since. McGeddon ( talk) 14:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - WP:NOTNEWS applies. Local event. reddogsix ( talk) 15:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 15:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. ...William 15:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete NOTNEWS. Known for single event. No in-depth coverage of subject found. 78.26 _{(
spin me /
revolutions)} 15:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete per WP:BLP1E: only notable for the event. Esquivalience ^t 14:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. I considered closing this as no consensus as there are reasonable arguments for deletion and keeping. However with the article having some additional coverage since the AFD was opened and the weight of numbers being in favour of keeping am closing as a weak rough consensus for keeping. The individual journals have already been redirected and while only some contributors discuss them there is a consensus that they should not have separate articles. Davewild ( talk) 06:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Indigo Publications

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

Not notable, only contains promotional material Mnnlaxer ( talk) 14:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Indigo Publications is the publisher of several online journals that all have Wikipedia articles, which have similar or worse problems that this one. If Indigo Publications is deleted, the individual journals should be deleted as well. They are:

All articles were created by either Special:Contributions/Winkind or Special:Contributions/Axiome2~enwiki. All articles besides Maghreb Confidential and Africa Mining Intelligence were edited by User:SteveStrummer, who added the official website and/or the official logo to the articles. SteveStrummer opposed my WP:PROD for all articles, necessitating this AfD. I've asked SteveStrummer to confirm he is okay with redirecting the individual publications pages to Indigo Publications while this process is open: User_talk:SteveStrummer#Proposed deletion of Indigo Publications. - Mnnlaxer ( talk) 15:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

UPDATE: From the discussion below, it appears some editors are not familiar with the relevant policies. I nominated this article for deletion because it is not notable. Read Wikipedia:Notability and the organization and company specific notability guideline. As for this AfD discussion see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Contributing to AfD discussions. Note: Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself. And: valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements. Finally, editors that favor keeping the article are encouraged to improve the article right now to show notability. If there are more verifiable RS for this article, they should be added to the article now, not just listed below. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 14:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

FINAL POINT: If Indigo itself can't find much notable press about itself in english, there likely isn't much out there. In French appears a bit better, but I don't think there is anything there that Mojoworker missed. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 16:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Well, there's the New York Times terming one of their publications as the "authoritative French newsletter La Lettre du Continent"... Mojoworker ( talk) 19:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Is that significant coverage? Mnnlaxer ( talk) 21:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep. This news organization gets a full chapter of discussion in a scholarly book, already cited in the article. [4] The current wording of the article is a bit promotional in places, but that can be fixed. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 15:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

The text is obviously promotional. But that isn't the issue for this AfD. Indigo is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Being the case study for one chapter of a scholarly book is not enough to be notable. See the source search links above. Virtually nothing comes up. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 15:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment. I would like to see something else. I cannot find discussion about the subject in anything but the aforementioned book, and it does appear to be a case study by someone who might be personally familiar with two of the company heads (see very top of p. 141). The various newsletters also do not appear to be individually notable and should at the very least redirect here. - Location ( talk) 17:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Weak keep That the company got a full chapter in a book seems pretty notable, and the book itself is carried in over 1K libraries as per WorldCat. However, that is only one RS, and could be considered a fluke. At least one more is needed. I don't understand the conclusion that the author of the book is personally familiar with two of the company heads, since that page seems to only say that they had dinner together. It's pretty common for folks writing books to spend time with their subjects. Did I miss something more dastardly? I'll look separately at the individual journals, after reviewing criteria for notability. LaMona ( talk) 19:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep. Newspapers and media groups are notoriously difficult to source by Wikipedia standards, but some things are self-evident. Indigo is a global publisher for over 35 years and maintains an influential presence in its fields. The book is a scholarly study, and devotes an entire chapter to Indigo. SteveStrummer ( talk) 20:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

WP:NRV says "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability." (emphasis added) There is one independent source right now. That's not even "sources," much less "significant attention." If Indigo has an influential presence, then you need to show evidence of that, not assert it. Also, thank you for supporting redirection of the individual journals right now. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 21:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

It's quite significant attention, a full chapter of the book: and the book is a high-quality resource for the subject of business information services. Even if other sources are not readily obtainable, there is no need to demand more for the mere purpose of notability. SteveStrummer ( talk) 00:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

From WP:WHYN: "We require multiple sources so that we can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, rather than representing only one author's point of view." And from Notability for companies: "A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." Mnnlaxer ( talk) 03:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment I looked at the articles for the individual journals. This is a group of newsletters that are under one "roof": African Intelligence [5], which is an Indigo publication. They are all very brief, and with a superfluous link to the other journals.The individual titles all link to sub-pages of a single web page for African Intelligence. That would argue for treating them as a single publication with sub-sections, and having a re-direct from individual titles. However, that would require there to be an article on the "mother" journal, Africa Intelligence, and there isn't one. Also, I saw only one article with a citation, and didn't find references. Do these articles need to go through AfD individually? If not, I'll !vote Delete on the individual articles listed above, and if someone wants to create an article for African Intelligence as a whole, then we will see if that rises to notability standards. LaMona ( talk) 21:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

No they don't. But if this article is deleted, then I would follow up by proposing the individual articles for bulk AfD. The most prominent of the individual journals is Intelligence Online from what I've seen. African Intelligence seems go be a mother journal for the other 5 Indigo Publications titles. But I would not recommend it for creation, simply because it has five publications under it. They are all non-notable on their own, I don't think anyone would argue that. Also, you should delete your previous comment or merge them together so that people can easily tell they are from the same editor. Thanks. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 21:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

The "mother" would be Indigo Publications, not African Intelligence. All the journals themselves are unsuited for standalone articles, and I noted so in my edit summaries; however, they are viable redirects to the company. SteveStrummer ( talk) 00:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep – More coverage here. Mojoworker ( talk) 04:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

HumanIPO is not a WP:Reliable source, that is a press release. And in any case, the fact that a company makes a profit does not make the company notable. FYI, the Bloomberg Business listing does not make the company notable either. Some editors need to read WP:DISCUSSAFD - Mnnlaxer ( talk) 05:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Love your snarky response, so I'll respond in kind. If HumanIPO is not a WP:Reliable source, you should inform the editors of The Signpost and ask why they used them as a source for Cape Town's 2015 Wikimania bid. And you'd better take HumanIPO's use as a reference in the Uber (company) article to WP:RSN ASAP. You claim it's a press release, but it appears to have been written by one of HumanIPO's journalists... And the significance of the HumanIPO article, is that it includes more than financial data. I've added some referenced information into the article under discussioon about Indigo's digital strategy. As for the individual articles, I agree with LaMona that they should be aggregated into this article – Mnnlaxer has already redirected them. Lastly, perhaps some editors need to read WP:CIVIL when they realize that consensus is running against them. Mojoworker ( talk) 21:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the love. Right back at you. I will take HumanIPO to the RSN. Here's their independent mentions on Google News Archive search. And did you notice there aren't any "stories" from later than January? And that all stories on the home page are by the same author?

"Digital strategy" in non-PR language means changing a hard copy newsletter to email. As for consensus, I can live with either result of this discussion, but you don't understand the term-of-art "consensus": Wikipedia:Consensus. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 21:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

I reverted my own revert to leave your new text, Mojoworker. Sorry. I do encourage people to improve the article. I happen to disagree that the new text is an improvement, but so be it for now. I'm fine discussing it here and on WP:RSN -- Mnnlaxer ( talk) 21:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

I started a talk page discussion about using the specific HumanIPO article as a source as well as the text added itself: Talk:Indigo Publications. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 15:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply

The HumanIPO article may have some interesting information, but it's not a strong addition to the page. That said, the English WP article is already stronger than the French article, which is tagged as lacking sufficient sources. I still see this article as being on the fence between keep and delete, and lean toward keep only because of the book chapter. LaMona ( talk) 14:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Do you think the book chapter, by itself, shows "significant coverage" of Indigo? See WP:SIGCOV. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 15:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Since they've been around since 1981, not all relevant coverage is going to be online. I don't have time to do that sort of research at the moment. Mojoworker ( talk) 19:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Sidebar - in the interest of keeping the !votes close together, please place new entries above this line.

There are 97 results at Google Scholar for "Indigo Publications". If the individual publications are aggregated into this article, as LaMona and I are suggesting, then there are a large number of additional sources, not all of which may constitute "significant coverage", but some certainly do. Some are just library holdings of the publications, and a number of results list them as media partners for trade shows – not sure how much significance that adds, but some... Anyway, for Africa Mining Intelligence as an example (from the first few pages of 296,000 Google results:

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (October 2011). Minerals Yearbook, 2009, V. 3, Area Reports, International, Africa and the Middle East. Government Printing Office. p. 20. ISBN 978-1-4113-2975-1.
http://www.minesandmoney.com/mauritius/africa-mining-intelligence-2/#
http://www.energynet.co.uk/partner/africa-mining-intelligence
IBP USA Staff; USA International Business Publications (7 February 2007). South Africa Mining Industry Business Opportunities Handbook. Int'l Business Publications. p. 77. ISBN 978-1-4330-4559-2. {{ cite book}}: |author2= has generic name ( help)
http://www.gisinminingafrica.co.za/MediaPartner.aspx
http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/6860540
http://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/1450933/africa_mining_intelligence

Additionally, there are an 107 results at Google Scholar].

For The Indian Ocean Newsletter it looks like even more significant coverage, being cited in publications by University Press of Florida, Oxford University Press, and The Daily Telegraph:

Okbazghi Yohannes (1991). Eritrea: A Pawn in World Politics. University Press of Florida. p. 313. ISBN 978-0-8130-1044-1.
Selig S. Harrison Senior Associate Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; New Delhi K. Subrahmanyam Director Institute of Studies and Analyses (4 May 1989). Superpower Rivalry in the Indian Ocean : Indian and American Perspectives: Indian and American Perspectives. Oxford University Press, USA. p. 163. ISBN 978-0-19-536370-8.
Berger, Sebastien (17 Mar 2009). "Madagascar president forced to resign". The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group Limited. Retrieved 17 June 2015.
http://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/2795029

Additionally, there are 132 results at Google Scholar].

Those are just from the first few pages of Google results for the first two publications, I didn't check the other five... I've certainly seen many Wikipedia articles with far, far, far less coverage than this. Mojoworker ( talk) 20:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply

I've clicked all the bulleted links. That's not coverage. All of those save one are citations. The one is a Indigo reporter being quoted. That's not coverage either. Could you share one of those far, far less coverage articles that is notable? Mnnlaxer ( talk) 22:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Oh boy. Mojoworker, I admire the work you did to come up with the above, but I'm afraid it misses two points. 1) How do you propose to improve the article with these citations? "One of Indigo's publications, Africa Mining Intelligence was cited in the Minerals Yearbook 2009." That doesn't cut it. See WP:Permastub 2) The article is not notable as a company because it has not received "significant coverage" as a company. Having its online newsletters cited by other publications does not make either the publication or the company notable in the sense of Wikipedia. Here is the specific notability guideline for the web Wikipedia:Notability (web). Here is the criteria for web content:

The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations[4] except for media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.[5] or trivial coverage, such as: a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, and content descriptions in directories or online stores.

See also WP:FAILN. Lastly, I clicked all the Africa Mining Intelligence links you provided and didn't think any of them qualified as independent, significant coverage from a RS. I can go through each one, but it would help if you singled out 5 or less of your best candidates for good sources for us to talk about. Discussing Indigo Publications itself would be best and don't bother with links that show Indigo or one of the newsletters was cited somewhere. The source should be independent and discuss the material in the body of the text, not in a citation. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 21:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply

These sources cannot be dismissed so readily. Wikipedia:Notability (media) notes that "Notability is presumed for newspapers, magazines and journals" that "are considered by reliable sources to be authoritative in their subject area" or "are frequently cited by other reliable sources". It's a benefit to the encyclopedia to provide information about such publications. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 01:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply

That would be true if it was the right category, but it's not. That is for traditional media organizations reaching a wide and general audience. For Indigo, the correct guideline is what I linked to above, WP:WEB. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 02:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply

For Indigo, the correct guideline is (despite what you linked to above), certainly not WP:WEB. Only recently did they become all digital – previously they did traditional printing and distribution of their publications. And despite now being all digital, why do you assume that they are merely a website? On the contrary, they now publish via PDF sent over email - merely a difference in distribution. And a subscription includes access to archives of their back catalog of all traditionally published articles since 1992. Arxiloxos is exactly correct. Mnnlaxer, did you miss the part that says "Notability is presumed for newspapers, magazines and journals that verifiably meet through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria: 4. are frequently cited by other reliable sources"? The examples I provided are illustrative of that form of notability. Point 5, "are significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets" may be applicable as well. Look, it appears nothing we say is going to convince you. I'm tired of your tendentious attitude and I have little interest in debating you further, when we all could be doing something more constructive, like building an encyclopedia. I'm happy to put in some effort, when/if the article is kept, to incorporate the individual publications into the "mother" article (if that's the decision), but I've said what I need to say and I'll leave it up to the closing admin. I think I'm done here. Mojoworker ( talk) 05:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply

You are correct, as I noted above, the standard for Indigo is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). My point was Indigo does not qualify for Wikipedia:Notability (media), which says, "The scope of this guideline covers all forms of 'traditional media' - including newspapers, magazines, radio, and television. Websites are determined by the WP:WEB guideline." But even if it was a media organization, Indigo still does not meet that standard: "A media outlet is presumed notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. 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." 4 and 5 don't apply, because Indigo is not a newspaper, magazine or journal. It produces newsletters. It is a niche market, and it is important in its niche, that much is clear. But is it notable enough for Wikipedia? No one here has shown that it is. Speaking of building an encyclopedia, you could have been improving the article instead of arguing here. Your only attempt so far is very weak. See Talk:Indigo_Publications. The time to improve it is now, before this discussion is closed. I promise you I would withdraw my nomination if the article can be improved enough to show notability. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 14:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply

I had some time this morning to add some things to the article, but it's by no means finished... Part of the issue – and it's obvious once I gave it some thought – is that, being a french company, most of the references will be in french. A number of them to be found at google.fr – here's one search for example. Perhaps more here at google.fr books Mojoworker ( talk) 19:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Sigh. Well, I haven't dived into your new sources, and I won't be able to assess the French ones very well, but even if you've solved the RS issue, you've made the WP:PROMOTION issue worse. We all agree the individual publications aren't notable by themselves, so now you've added a bunch of non-notable material to the article. It shouldn't contain anything more than a list of the publications. I'll discuss in more specifics later on the article talk page, but I still want an editor to close this discussion, because no-one has shown that Indigo Publications is a notable subject for an article on Wikipedia. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 22:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Many of the references I've presented are consistent with WP:Notability (periodicals) in that the publications in question are "the kinds of periodicals that are formally published, that is they (usually after 1974) have an ISSN code, are circulated in libraries or other reference sources, and (usually or often) appear in paper". It appears all these publications have ISSN codes, I've provided some library catalogs where they are included, and they all were, at one time published in print form (and according to a ref I added to the article from Le Monde, two of them still are available in printed form). Specifically applicable to the Google Scholar results I previously listed, notability criterion #4 states: "The periodical has had regular and significant usage as a citation in academic or scholarly works". As for my changes, at the beginning of this section, I advocated the preference of LaMona and I to aggregate the individual publications into this article, said I would be "happy to put in some effort, when/if the article is kept, to incorporate the individual publications" into the article under discussion. I had planned to wait until the article was kept (or had no consensus to delete), but since you've been adamant that the "time to improve it is now, before this discussion is closed", I went ahead and restored some of the material from the individual articles that you redirected to this article. I pared them down, but if you think there is too much WP:PROMOTION in those subsections, go ahead and edit them. I happen to agree with you that the original articles seemed promotional, but that has no relevance to the notability of the subject. Mojoworker ( talk) 19:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply

First, the Notability guideline for Indigo Publications is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Primary criteria: "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." So please argue how Indigo meets that criteria. Or just go with the General notability guideline. I'm afraid I'm at fault for bringing in the guideline on web content as it applies to the newsletters. But you and Arxiloxos have brought in the essays on media and periodicals. Neither apply here. The newsletters are subscription based, so they don't generally circulate in libraries or other reference sources. But I thought everyone has already agreed the newsletters themselves are not notable. That's the reason their articles were blanked and redirected to Indigo. So why are we still discussing anything other than the company or general guidelines? Finally, I do agree promotion and notable are separate issues. Notability comes first. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 20:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply

No, not everyone "has already agreed the newsletters themselves are not notable". I believe only you and User:Location have. LaMona, SteveStrummer, and I have advocated merging them to this article – or some other "mother" article (such as Publications of Indigo Publications or Indigo Publications publications – very awkward titles), since African Intelligence isn't really suitable as the "mother" article. And yes, Wikipedia:Notability (media) and Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals) are essays. but note that (from the media essay): "This notability essay for media topics is not policy; however, it reflects consensus reached through discussions and reinforced by established practice, and informs decisions on whether an article on a topic should be written, merged, deleted or further developed."

In the link to the Stanford Library I provided above, it shows they have the back-catalog (when it was physically printed) of The Indian Ocean newsletter Issues no. 1-885, 1981-1999 in the Hoover Library stacks and has Issues no. 886(2001)-no. 965(2001), no. 967(2001)-no. 1264(2009) in off-campus storage. The search for others is left as an exercise for the reader. But the Google Scholar citations are what's compelling... From the periodicals essay: "A periodical that is considered reliable enough to be used regularly as a reliable source by a large number of other works (especially scholarly and other academic works) is considered notable enough to have an article, just the same as an academic who is highly regarded and widely cited is considered notable per WP:PROF." So, yes, I do believe the individual publications are notable. But I also believe they are better presented all together. Would you be more amenable to renaming the article to Indigo Publications List? I could maybe see that as a possibility, but need to think about it further. Mojoworker ( talk) 00:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC) reply

I stand corrected. I think essays are fine to use, but in this case, when you have a perfectly applicable guideline, then that takes precedence. It seems desperate to use the periodicals notability standard for the publications in order for the company to inherit that notability. Perhaps ditching the company in favor of an article more clearly based on the newsletters themselves could have a better justification of notability. But you are ignoring the first sentence of the Criteria section in the essay. "If a periodical meets any one of the following conditions, as evidenced by citing reliable sources which write significant commentary about the periodical in relation to the specific criteria, it is likely to be notable." (emphasis in original) You are using criteria #4: "The periodical has had regular and significant usage as a citation in academic or scholarly works." You don't just get to use Google Scholar to show there are citations. You have to use RS that have significant commentary about the periodical. This all comes back to showing significant coverage in RS of either the company or the periodicals. It just doesn't exist. You've tried hard, but it isn't there. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 13:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Mojoworker, I still think you are operating in good faith, but to quote the note to one of the periodical criteria, while ignoring the requirement that RS have to write significant commentary on the periodical meeting the criteria is tendentious. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 14:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment The article is greatly improved. Two things: there need to be references for the individual journals -- obviously the Indigo site is a source, but it would be good to find others. So I would leave it with a "More sources needed" banner. The other thing is that I find it odd that there is no ISSN (or no ISSNs) listed. Perhaps such an identifier isn't necessary for online publication, but the earlier print publication might have had one. Some identifier would help connect users to indexes, libraries, etc. Note that at least one Indigo publication shows in WorldCat with a respectable number of libraries listing it: [6]. LaMona ( talk) 20:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply

The Indigo site is a primary source for the newsletters, so it can only be used for basic information and cannot show notability. If Indigo is deemed notable, then I'll put the promotion and unsourced templates on the article. Try clicking through to an actual library to get your hands (or computer hard drive) on a copy of any newsletter. It won't be easy and it certainly won't be free to the general public. It might be possible to get some electronic text with access to a subscription-based database, but that's probably not what the essay means by circulated in libraries. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 21:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Mnnlaxer I'm not sure what your point is about libraries. I don't think anyone suggested that the journals are free to the general public. The link I found (and I didn't remember a mention of libraries in the article) is for a LEXIS/NEXIS subscription, and I see no problem with that. Library digital subscriptions are regularly limited to that specific library's patrons. I'm seeing library holdings, esp. academic library holdings, as a sign that some researchers ascribe value to these publications. It's not a slam dunk, just another clue to notability. LaMona ( talk) 00:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC) reply

LaMona, the ISSNs are as follow

Intelligence Online 1632-0239
Africa Mining Intelligence 1624-0022
The Indian Ocean Newsletter 0194-6467 (or 0294-6475)
Maghreb Confidential 1624-6136
La Lettre du Continent 0296-399X

Don't have time to look up the rest right now, snd I'm not exactly sure how best to present them, but go ahead and add them if you want (or I'll do it later). Mojoworker ( talk) 00:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC) reply

I admit I'm going off topic too frequently here. The only thing that counts is significant RS coverage/commentary on the company/newsletters. I'm going to request closure of this AfD so we can move on, whatever the decision is. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 14:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild ( talk) 18:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Young Shakespeare Players

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

Non-notable and unsourced, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. JMHamo ( talk) 14:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - It seems this organization has never received much solid and significant coverage as this looks the same before it was deleted as PROD. My searches (News, Books, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found nothing explicitly good aside from Books and Highbeam. It'd be nice if every article was kept but this one could use better coverage which it has not received apparently. SwisterTwister talk 17:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment The article lacks basic information (such as country!). Probable reluctant Delete as lacking sufficient coverage. Pincrete ( talk) 20:56, 20 June 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. Whether to make an article about the Youtuber is a separate question. JohnCD ( talk) 14:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Matthew Santoro

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

Non-notable visual effects artist and even less notable aspirational director of yet-to-be-made films. The Dissident Aggressor 14:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

delete nn. Staszek Lem ( talk) 20:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete for now with no possible move target as my searches found nothing to suggest solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 17:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Refactor to be about the YouTuber [7] [8] [9]. 野狼院ひさし u/ t/ c 03:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete I agree with all the other statements listed so far. And the author, JadieSantoro, appears to be related to the subject, which is a conflict of interest. Rainbow unicorn ( talk) 21:57, 21 June 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. JohnCD ( talk) 14:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Jody Mabry

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

Not enough coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustain article. Jbh ^Talk 13:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete: as utterly lacking in notability. Quis separabit? 16:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - does not live up to WP:CREATIVE criteria Qasaur ( talk) 18:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete Possibly it's just WP:TOOSOON for this author of children's chapter books who is also a ghostwriter. Ghostwriters can be notable. Problem is a news search on his name turns up noting at all (with or without middle initial), and his blog lists no published reviews, only a string of reviews on what seem to be blogs. He is interviewed by online literary sites [10] , [11]. But I think he would need a little more than that to pass WP:AUTHOR. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 22:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete unfortunately, since JM's a good writer, hopefully JM will be back in Wikipedia when there are more WP:RS.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 22:59, 21 June 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. Wikipedia is not here to "create awareness" of companies which have not reached the notability standard of WP:CORP, or for companies to tell the world about themselves. It may well be that some of the other articles listed should also be nominated for deletion, but the presence of some company articles with no independent sourcing is not a reason for allowing more. JohnCD ( talk) 14:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Falcon global group holding

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:

{{subst:
spa|username}}

; suspected canvassed users:

{{subst:
canvassed|username}}

; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry:

{{subst:
csm|username}}

or

{{subst:
csp|username}}

.

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

Non-notable company, no organisation depth in sources. Fails WP:GNG, WP:CORP and WP:ORGDEPTH. Note to those commenting here, there is an ongoing SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HistoryofME- this is also a discussion not a vote. Joseph2302 ( talk) 12:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

The reason of creating such page Falcon Global Group Holding is to create awareness about companies in developing countries such of Saudi Arabia. Moreover, most of the saudi large companies are listed on Wikipedia with no sources Article, news, etc., because this is how it works developing countries. Check these links below

/info/en/?search=A._A._Turki_Group /info/en/?search=Abdulla_Fouad_Group_of_Companies /info/en/?search=Balubaid /info/en/?search=Haji_Husein_Alireza_%26_Co._Ltd. /info/en/?search=Mawarid_Holding /info/en/?search=House_of_Alireza /info/en/?search=Olayan_Group /info/en/?search=Rezayat /info/en/?search=Tamimi_Group

Endless list. If we deleted them all, we wont have any information about 90% of the large companies there. However, I am not sure why you trying to delete Falcon Global Group Holding among other. I dont work there nor I know anyone there, But you seems work in rival company or something, since you left all these companies and focused on one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryofME ( talk • contribs) 00:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC) — HistoryofME ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a terrible argument. You've not given any evidence the company is actually notable. Joseph2302 ( talk) 00:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply

I agree with Joseph2302 the fact is that there is no credible source on the page for the existence and notability of the company. It seems this is an attempt to gain credibility and visibility through pointing to the existence of a dedicated Wikipedia article. I have not reviewed the other companies that were linked to above, but if their existence is also based on evidence that is as flimsy as this, then they should be deleted as well. I am new to editing articles, and I would imagine that my opinion does not carry much weight, but I have to start somewhere. I would also note that the user User:HistoryofME is credited with the creation of the article, according to the page's history. I would not that when considering a possible bias on his part that might lead him to defend the article's continued existence Goldenstandard ( talk) 03:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. I found no evidence of coverage in reliable, independent sources. Does not meet the notability guideline for corporations or the general guideline. The state of other articles, though unfortunate, is not relevant here. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 14:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete per above. It's also worth noting that Falcon Global Group Holding was deleted in the past under WP:A7 of the speedy deletion criteria. While I think this article narrowly avoids the same as a result of its Dubai 2020 involvement, as I mentioned on the article's talk page, it clearly does not meet WP:GNG.

@ HistoryofME:, please note that this is nothing against you or this company. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. While our notability criteria are slightly broader than an actual encyclopedia, merely because of the nature of the site, Wikipedia is only intended to hold information that is of enduring encyclopedic value. Even setting WP:GNG aside for a moment, I think most people would agree that a five year old company with no significant news coverage beyond a brief mention does not have encyclopedic value at this time, as vague and difficult to define as that term is. This does not mean that the company doesn't have value or that it won't have encyclopedic value in the future. This could just be a case of WP:TOOSOON. ~ Rob^Talk 04:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Bad faith nom by user previously warned to not make bad faith noms. He is now blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Rasna (actress)

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

some reason Akhil222 ( talk) 11:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 15. — ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep and close No deletion reason given by the nom. And someone should seriously look at their editing, esp. on the article in question. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep – While some of the sourcing is sketchy, two of the sources are from traditional media ( The Hindu, one of which indicate that she one a "Best Actress" award), so this one seems to pass WP:N (though it's a little on the weak side). -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 13:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
This came up yesterday at ANI and the nom was warned then not to make such nominations, with the previous one deleted. I suspect that there may be language competency issues at work here, but they need to stop nomming pages for no reason. Valenciano ( talk) 18:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as G11 by User:Jimfbleak.(non-admin closure) Joseph2302 ( talk) 12:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

GRAVITAS,VIT University

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

Non-notable technology festival run by an institute that isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Also, written in a really promotional way. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NEVENT and WP:PROMO. Joseph2302 ( talk) 11:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment The institute does have a Wikipedia article, VIT University. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 12:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Oh, I looked on the VIT disambiguation, and couldn't find it. Either way, it's been speedied as a G11 by User:Jimfbleak. Joseph2302 ( talk) 12:37, 15 June 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. JohnCD ( talk) 12:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Andrew Ethridge Amini

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

Not enough coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. Jbh ^Talk 11:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete this is a piss-take. There is no conceivable way that a 16 year old high school student can meet WP:PROF. Minors also required protection under WP:BLP. Le petit fromage ( talk) 05:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. It is not unheard of for science fair winners to be notable for that, but we need actual major newspaper coverage and not just contest web sites as sources, and I didn't find anything like that. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Information: Draft:Andrew Ethridge Amini also exists. Fuddle ( talk) 00:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete All the sources are from the events he participated in. If he really developed a major medical break-though we would see coverage from outside sources. Well, it is possible no one else realizes that yet, but Wikipedia does not do original research. If he has done ground-breaking scientific work, reliable sources will emerge. For now the article makes unsubstantiated claims and should be deleted. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to OMGPop#Games. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply

List of games on OMGPop

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

Non-notable list of game for now-defunct website - only one entry has an article (and none others are likely to warrant one) and no sources are likely to become available given its closure. Nik the stunned 09:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Merge OMGPop#Games Not sure why it was spun out and not going to find out in the 4 years of history, but evidently not large enough nor separately notable enough to warrant such a split. 野狼院ひさし u/ t/ c 11:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) 野狼院ひさし u/ t/ c 11:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

I imagine its because so many other platforms have lists spun out like this, like PlayStation 4 and List of PlayStation 4 games. Of course, upon looking at these articles and comparing them to the respective OMGPop articles, its obvious to see they are both far smaller, and don't need to be split out at all. Sergecross73 msg me 12:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Merge - per my comment above. Sergecross73 msg me 12:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Merge or Delete: Per 野狼院ひさし and Sergecross73's reasoning. -- Anar chyte 08:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:44, 16 June 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. Reliable sources have been provided which indicate subject meets inclusion criteria, both NFooty and GNG, as he is mentioned by name in articles on a match between two fully professional sides. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Ye Ko Oo

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

Havent played in any professional league. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. MbahGondrong ( talk) 08:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Almost the exact same as Kyaw Zin Lwin. Can be recreated if subject meets requirements in future. Inter&anthro ( talk) 09:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. No established notability. Ashbeckjonathan ( talk) 01:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Should not be deleted. He is a first line up player of Myanmar U-23 Team which won silver medal in 2015 SEA Games. He scored in 2015 SEA GAMES also. And Myanmar National League is a professional football league of Myanmar and listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. This article is not failed WP:NFOOTBALL. He currently plays for Yadanabon FC which managed to hold Myanmar National League Cup three times out of last six seasons including 2014 Cup.-- MyatLynnAung ( talk) 07:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply

If User:MyatLynnAung can point to a single Myanmar National League match report that mentions him playing, I'm sure everyone here would support that the article would be kept. Nfitz ( talk) 06:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Done. Optakeover ^(Talk) 11:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Weak Delete - Probably notable per WP:NFOOTY, but really struggling to find confirmation of this, the comments above suggest that he essentially probably has played for a team in a fully professional league since I think it unlikely someone would play internationally without any club experience at an U-23 level, but are unfounded in the sources available to those not speaking Burmese. MyatLynnAung, at the risk of sounding presumptuous, your user name indicates that you might speak burmese. If so, are you able to provide a source that shows him either in a starting line up or coming on as a sub for his club. No problem if it is in Burmese script. Fenix down ( talk) 12:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep - per the reference below, he has played in a match in the AFC Cup between two teams from fully professional leagues. Fenix down ( talk) 13:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Strong and speedy keep. See [12], news report on Yadanarbon FC in the Myanmar National league which clearly shows his name. Also see [13] and [14], information on Yadanarbon FC's involvement in the 2015 AFC Cup. Evidence that the subject is a member of Yadanarbon FC, which is participating in the Myanmar National League, Myanmar's top level professional league, and also the AFC Cup, which is by no means non-notable. Therefore, clearly passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Optakeover ^(Talk) 11:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment Google has announced last time that they'll drop rankings of non mobile-friendly sites and non secure, HTTPS sites, thus websites such as The Myanmar Times would fall off Google's search rankings. If we assume most Burmese news websites to be the same, than a simple Google search can't be used to then rate notability just because you can't find anything on something, because it's highly likely Google isn't showing it due to their search engine design. AfD is not the Wikipedia Cleanup Department. I wished that more users would do their best to search for information rather than simply doing a Google search and expecting Google to speak for them. Optakeover ^(Talk) 11:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTY as per reference provided. User:Optakeover you don't have anything on Kyaw Zin Lwin for a league match. He was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyaw Zin Lwin a couple of days ago on a similar lack of references; all that came up with U23 international stuff. Nfitz ( talk) 12:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC) reply

To be fair, yes. I'll keep to WP:BLP on that point. But once there is sufficient information on that subject I think a deletion review would definitely be in store. Optakeover ^(Talk) 12:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment - I have asked this also on WP:FOOTY, and got and understood that continental competition apps does not make someone notable. Unless there are sources that mentions he played in the Myanmar League OR senior national team, then he will be notable. The sources above still does not make him notable since they only mention his apps in AFC Cup. Discussion link here. MbahGondrong ( talk) 17:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Normally when that comes up, it's between two teams where one (or both) aren't fully professional. And the reason is that when two fully professional teams meat in a continental cup, they tend to use regular players. What's different here, isn't that we think that this player hasn't had a league cap; this is the rare case where most suspect he has, but there's a complete lack of league match reports that anyone can find. I can't recall this every happening for another fully-professional league. Nfitz ( talk) 20:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC) reply

*Should still be deleted. While Ye Ko Oo's team has played in the AFC Cup, there is no source that affirms that he himself played in it. If he did play if would clearly be shown on a cite such as soccerway, the AFC website, or nationalfootballteams.com. As a matter of fact he comes up on none of those so it is most probable that he didn't play in that completion. There is no source what so ever to suggest that he is a regular for Yadanarbon FC, and while the fact that he has played a league game for them is certainly in the possibility Wikipedia needs clear references and not user's assumptions. Inter&anthro ( talk) 12:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Never mind, I finally found a source that confirms that he played in an AFC Cup match (sound a bit like a dumbass now haha). I have added the content to the article and it should now qualify for WP:NFOOTY. Inter&anthro ( talk) 12:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment - I am not able to find particular detail of the fixtures in which Ye Ko Oo appeared for his Club. But according to the result of quick search of www.footballdatabase.eu/football, he scored 4 times for Yadanarbon FC in 2014-15 season. Although clear reference of fixture information is not available but how he scored if he did not appeared. Still it is an assumption but it is a safe assumption. MyatLynnAung ( talk) 14:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Sorry, those goals were not from National League.

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

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

The result was merge to Kingston City Hall (Ontario)#Market Square. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Kingston Public Market

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

Non-notable event. I dream of horses ( T) @ 07:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep, it's not an event, it's the oldest public market in Ontario and as a market square is historically significant and designated a national historic site. Sophie Moxie ( talk) 11:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Merge and redirect to Kingston City Hall (Ontario). According to the official Canadian Register of Historic Places website, the market is a part of the Kingston City Hall National Historic Site of Canada. [15] The market is already discussed in that article. At minimum, the additional historical information here should be merged and redirected to Kingston City Hall (Ontario). I'm not yet seeing the need for a separate article about the market. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 15:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Do not delete A redirect and merge to Kingston_City_Hall_(Ontario)#Kingston_Market is fine for now. Should more content be added on the history of this market, a separate article can be recreated. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep but Rename to Springer Market Square - There's history here, to be sure. But the article seems to treat the public market and the public square (or "market square") interchangeably. In fact the Market is part of Springer Market Square -- at least as far as I can tell. It would be hard to disentangle the two subjects to parse separate articles, so my thought is that the space rather than the activity is the more notable subject. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Rachel Kent

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

Poorly referenced BLP. I dream of horses ( T) @ 18:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC) reply

I am working on the references. From other pages of people I have seen just about the same thing :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nichijuu ( talk • contribs) 18:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC) reply

UPDATE: There is a shred of nobility for Rachel but you want proof other what is in her house or on ancestry.com, she will not provide that information as it was a family secret. As far as being from Clan Henderson, that comes from her great-grandmother who was a Henderson and her family lived on the same land that Thomas Henderson had since 1796. Her great grandmother moved from Grainger, TN to Detroit, Michigan in the 1930s. She has traced the family back.

She does support a charity and I have documented the sources, she is in the charity's booklet (that is in .pdf format). Also from her former university she attended also has that info. (documented as well)

What else is needed? Getty Images for proof? I have provided that info here, not on main page but she has been on getty images. As far as 'notability', I am not sure what you are saying --- I have provided the information that is needed. There is no need to delete an article. She has done acting, locally here in Atlanta. I can provide a screen shot of her being in 'We are Marshall' film, I believe it is under her IMDB page. She did compose a song for the charity noted above. Again, I have documented proof , not sure what you are saying there is 'not a shred of notability' when there has been proof provided. Nichijuu ( talk) 01:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC) (on the main page) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly
HMSSolent)}| lambast 00:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly
HMSSolent)}| lambast 00:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly
HMSSolent)}| lambast 00:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete Fails WP:GNG and no evidence of notability as a model, actor, politician, musician, general celebrity, or whatever else she's done (although GNG allows an article for people who received substantial press coverage, with certain restrictions, generally someone is required to be outstanding in their field to merit a Wikipedia article - hence the subject-specific notability guidelines). Supporting a charity or coming from an old Tennessee family are not grounds for notability: if her family is notable, this could be redirected there. Colapeninsula ( talk) 09:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 07:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete no evidence of notability, no references. Jooojay ( talk) 07:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - per nom. Nichijuu, please reveiw the WP:GNG for information about notability and what kind of references are needed. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete. I am unable to find any hint of the sort of notability that is sufficient to warrant coverage on Wikipedia. Of course there are other people with the same name but none of the independent reliable sources appear to relate to this one. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 15:44, 15 June 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. ( WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Wael Sharaf

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

Non notable actor who is also too soon-page was previously created by another user also. Wgolf ( talk) 16:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Move to Bab_Al-Hara#List_of_characters as it seems he is best known for that show and is the only listed at his IMDb; searches here and here along with browser found results but nothing outstandingly significant and notable. SwisterTwister talk 20:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 07:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 19:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

AppsFlyer

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

Article reads like an advertisement, would need rewrite to become neutral IMO ( talk to) TheOtherGaelan( 's contributions) 07:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Strong keep. It is a real and big company. I think the recent edits made it more neutral and it no longer looks like an advertisement. Happy138 ( talk) 09:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep. Meets WP:GNG. Almost certainly not intended as an advert or promotion but the prose could definitely use some toning down. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 20:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep. Meets GNG. AfD is not for cleanup. Epeefleche ( talk) 00:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep - Seems that the article has improved since nomination. Certainly no need to get rid of it. Pax Verbum 05:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild ( talk) 06:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Kaizer Kaiz (Rapper)

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

I don't see anything on google that's an independent source. I dream of horses ( T) @ 05:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - non-notable artist. Dan arndt ( talk) 23:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt ( talk) 02:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt ( talk) 02:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete fails WP:MUSICBIO. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 23:21, 16 June 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. There's clear consensus that the current article should not continue to exist. Beyond that, there's no real consensus on whether delete, TNT, or redirect is the right thing. I'm going to just delete the current article. The title's not protected, so if anybody wants to take another shot at writing this, they can do that without any further action (i.e. no need to drag this to DRV if all you want to do is create a new version). It doesn't seem like Phenomenology (science) would be a likely search term, so redirect isn't, IMHO, a viable alternative. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Phenomenology (science)

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

It appears that the topic of this article is original research. As far as I understand there are multiply definition and usage of the term "phenomenology", however no source list some universal definition for "Phenomenology in (any) science". There are articles about Phenomenology in different fields but this particular one is just OR Dima io 20:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep Phenomenology is an important part of the scientific method. There's an entire section of arxiv devoted to high energy physics phenomenology. "Phenomenology" also gets 6000 hits in PubMed, indicating that it's used in biology. Many of these papers are categorized as phenomenology because they attempt to translate theory into testable experimental predictions. AliceIngvild94 ( talk) 21:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Maybe: The article is inaccurate and doesn't cite its sources very well. Phenomenology is a bunch of different things. The usage of the term in physics might be as offered in the article, but that's not "science": that's physics. Phenomenology has all sorts of implications in all sorts of sciences, of course, and Hegel's Phenomenology challenges the primacy of naive sense judgments. However, we're back to asking whether or not it's Wikipedia's job to duplicate or surpass the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or a purely philosophical reference site. If this article were written with exquisite care, great length, and hung off of Phenomenology, it could work, but it might still be questionable. Lean delete. Hithladaeus ( talk) 02:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC) reply
WP:TNT. I'm not sure if this is a viable cohesive topic or just a loosely related collection of usages in different subfields. (I know what it means in mine, but....) I am sure that the current article is not useful, and with so much of the article text made up of a long quote - from Merriam-Webster, of all things! - really shouldn't be here. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 04:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Phenomenology, a disambiguation page that includes the notable and specific scientific meanings (particle physics and psychology) without being just a vague dictionary definition. I don't think these topics are similar enough for a broad umbrella article such as this one to make sense. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 ( talk) 03:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

~~Redirect~~ to Phenomenology via Mz7 arguments Shad Innet ( talk) 06:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
I don't think too many people will search for "Phenomenology (science)" instead of Phenomenology.--Dima io 13:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dima io ( talk • contribs)
TNT - I don't see why redirecting is a good idea, since it's just a DAB. According to the introduction, this article is essentially about the phenomenology of philosophy, which already exists at Phenomenology (philosophy)! But I do believe it is a real topic so something should recreate it. Can be redlinked on the DAB. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

I agree. Ok, then rewrite of the phenomenology of philosophy or Delete Shad Innet ( talk) 09:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Currently the article is almost fork of Phenomenology (philosophy)Dima io 12:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dima io ( talk • contribs)

Delete or Redirect to Phenomenology. -- I am One of Many ( talk) 07:05, 22 June 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 due to sourcing improvements. Bearcat ( talk) 00:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Mariah Lopez

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

WP:BLP of an activist, which is resting mostly on unreliable sourcing — of the four references here, #2 and #4 are gutted as blogsourcing, while #1 glancingly namechecks her existence in the process of failing to be about her. #3 ain't so bad, admittedly — she's not the primary topic of the article, but she features in it prominently enough for it to be worth something — but one decent source isn't enough to get a person over WP:GNG by itself if all of the other sources are blogs and namechecks. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if an improved volume of good sourcing shows up. Bearcat ( talk) 03:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep, clearly notable and the sourcing seems sufficient. Skyerise ( talk) 22:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep, notable needs help with length of article and more sources. I added some but can use more. Jooojay ( talk) 02:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Okay, this has had some sourcing added since I first nominated this. Nomination withdrawn. Bearcat ( talk) 00:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild ( talk) 06:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Famous (2012 film)

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

A short film (19 minutes) that doesn't seem to have received any notice. Clarityfiend ( talk) 02:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly
HMSSolent)}| lambast 04:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly
HMSSolent)}| lambast 04:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly
HMSSolent)}| lambast 04:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

Delete in agreement that this film has not received coverage and thus fails WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete/userfy. I can't really see where this has received any coverage in RS, although foreign language coverage might exist. I couldn't even find a link to a video of this (which I'm mentioning partially because I wouldn't mind seeing this), which also doesn't really say much for its notability. I recommend userfying if anyone is interested, partially in the hopes that coverage might exist in FL sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete Short film is not a reason to consider it insignificant, but the article does not confirm the opposite Shad Innet ( talk) 06:17, 15 June 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. Consensus is that the article does not meet the relevant notability guidelines Davewild ( talk) 06:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Matt Thomas (basketball)

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

Your average run of the mill college player. Has not done anything particularly noteworthy. ~ EDDY ^{(
talk/
contribs)}~ 00:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly
HMSSolent)}| lambast 04:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly
HMSSolent)}| lambast 04:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Thomas was a very highly touted recruit out of high school. He received considerable attention on the recruitment circuit. He started half the 2014-2014 season for an Iowa State team that made it to the Sweet Sixteen. In the 2015-16 season Thomas will be either the first or second player off the bench. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.33.112.137 ( talk) 04:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete: Per nominator, a college player and campus hero. I'm sure he's very valuable to his team, but that puts him on a par with thousands of others. I remember when Weber St. beat UNC in the NCAA tournament with a 7' center hitting three 3-pointers, when he had never made a single one before (and never did again). College play, without something shocking ( Hank Gathers? Len Bias?) or staggering that's talked about nationally and for years, won't pass the bar. Hithladaeus ( talk) 12:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. I am not seeing enough independent sources to indicate he meets WP:GNG. Rikster2 ( talk) 15:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 06:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Nick Noskowiak

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

He has not played a game for the Cyclones. Does not appear to be a high school prospect with sufficient sources to pass GNG a la Diamond Stone. ~ EDDY ^{(
talk/
contribs)}~ 00:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Noskowiak is an ESPN Top 100 recruit and ranked as a top 15 guard in the country. He was heavily recruited by power five schools and landed at a pre-season top 5 Iowa State program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.33.112.137 ( talk) 04:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete: WP:CRYSTALBALL: There are loads of agencies, magazines, and others that exist to create lists of "top recruits," "top position players," and the like. As an ACC fan, I know: everyone has the best recruiting class in history, and, if they don't, they have a "diaper dandy" or something similar. Wikipedia standards are not based on such fevers. Hithladaeus ( talk) 12:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Rikster2 ( talk) 14:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:TOOSOON; adopt @Rikster2 rationale. Quis separabit? 15:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild ( talk) 06:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Nick Babb

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

Chris Babb's less-notable younger brother. Averaged less than a point per game for Arkansas. If not a delete, a redirect to his brother's article is in order. ~ EDDY ^{(
talk/
contribs)}~ 00:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Nick was an undervalued recruit that committed to play for an Arkansas team that wasn't a good fit. With his transfer to Iowa State, he will flourish under the fast paced offensive system built for athletic players like him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.33.112.137 ( talk) 04:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete: Arkansas had a good season the year this guy was a freshman, and yet, despite minutes, he did not stand out. He was a freshman recruit. This is CRYSTALBALL, as a ton of "high school top 100" stuff is. That there is a whole industry that exists to hype predictions doesn't change them into accomplishments. Hithladaeus ( talk) 12:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete: as insufficiently accomplished athlete; possible TOO SOON. Quis separabit? 16:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. When I check I don't see enough independent sources to indicate he meets WP:GNG. Rikster2 ( talk) 15:13, 20 June 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.