Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 August	21 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was invalid, please see the newer one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Muaaz Bin Zaka (3rd nomination). (non-admin closure) NgYShung ^huh? 03:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Muaaz Bin Zaka

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

This is fake personality till yet not a public figure yet Muhammad Muaaz Bin Zaka (talk) 03:01, 20 August 2016 (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) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DOMENIC CRETARA

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

Fails WP:GNG, topic doesnt even indicate a proper background knowledge to fully understand whom the topic is. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of Cretara's works is in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum. His work has been featured in several (solo) museum shows. That makes him notable per WP:ARTIST. Mduvekot (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've fixed up the article a bit and added more references. The coverage is there and he does clearly meet the requirements of WP:ARTIST #4. Silver seren^C 04:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although there are some citation errors noted (which should be simple to clear up), the article is about an important American artist, a leading representative of what has been termed "visionary representation." As director of the Frye Art Museum in Seattle, I had the pleasure of organizing a solo exhibition of Cretara's work over a decade ago and can attest to the quality and substance of his drawing and painting. More emphasis, however, could be given to the importance of his role as teacher at California State University, Long Beach where he has influenced and guided several generations of young artists. (Richard V. West, Director Emeritus, Frye Art Museum, Seattle) 174.24.143.233 (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cretara has earned a national reputation as a painter and teacher, which is documented in the article. His work has been exhibited and collected by major art museums. Article needs clean-up, text refinement, and expansion, but includes enough information to affirm the artist's importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxbeck (talk • contribs) 23:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added a further reading section for an article on Cretara in a 1992 issue of American Artist. It's 30 pages all about him. I found the details of it from an EBSCO search, but it only had the details of the article and not the text. If anyone could find a copy of the text somewhere, perhaps a PDF, that would be really helpful. But it might be a bit difficult. American Artist went defunct in October of 2012 and was bought out and incorporated into The Artist's Magazine, so finding back issues of the original version might be complicated. But it's out there somewhere. Silver seren^C 19:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't even understand what the reason given for deletion is supposed to mean. I can only assume that it's a very clumsy attempt to say that there is not enough context to indicate what the subject of the article is about, but if that is what it is intended to mean then that is simply not true. Even the very poor stub which the article was at the time of the nomination told us what the author's name was, where he came from, what he was known for, and gave references which provided further information about him and his work. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Grey's Anatomy characters. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie Pierce

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

non notable character in TV series. Theroadislong (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC) Theroadislong (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no improvement in article. Non-notable Cotton2 (talk) 10:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Grey's Anatomy characters for now at least: The character is notable (a simple Google News search will reveal various third-party, notable sources that discuss this character), and the page has the potential to be strong. However, the page is currently extremely weak. I believe it would best to use a redirect so other users could possibly make something better of this in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 18:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Grey's Anatomy characters as suggested by Aoba47. The stub content should be merged onto the GA list page under the character. If it is expanded to the point of requiring a separate topic such as Meredith Grey, then the subject is accessible. Burroughs'10 (talk) 19:10, 27 August 2016 (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. seems to be the consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Wahed (Bangladesh politician)

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

Notability is not established. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 20:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 20:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 20:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the reference in the article is self-published via AuthorHouse. Of course that doesn't preclude notability via other sources, which seems likely if the article content is true, but I see a pattern, especially for South Asian subjects, of providing junk sources in English rather good sources in languages such as Bengali. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If Wahed really was a "leading" activist on the language question, he might well be notable. However not everyone dragged off to jail in a protest becomes notable, and that is all that the article actually asserts about him, the other part is unjustified puffery. I tried to see if maybe there were more sources, and maybe I could find Wahed involved in broader political actions in either East Pakistan or Bangladesh. However, probably the best sources to look for are not on line. He may well have died 30 years ago or more, although he also may still be alive. My search for the name on google showed me that Abdul Wahed is a very common name or name component in Bangladesh, as well as several other places with heavily Muslim populations. I was not able to find any sources mentioning someone who seemed to be this person. There may be such, but until they are found, the sources as we have them are not enough and we should delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, Mention in banglapedia's language movement article, quote 1, 2 1. There were two weeklies, Insan and Insaf, edited by Abdul Wahed Chowdhury, supporting the Language Movement. and 2. ....SM Bazlul Huq, Syed Nazrul Islam, Mohammad Toaha, Oli Ahad and Abdul Wahed Chowdhury on 3 March 1948, published in the Daily Amritabazar Parika, Calcutta..., also mention in here. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 09:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just mentioning is not a clear notability; and this is not enough for a person's notability. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 14:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The normal way to express a wish to keep or delete an article is to preface the remark with Keep or Delete, without any icons. It is unclear what the previous two editors are disagreeing and agreeing with. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: OK. I changed the icon to delete. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 12:35, 27 August 2016 (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 00:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

93.5 FM Ohsweken, Ontario

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

Delete. WP:TOOSOON article about a proposed radio station for which I can still find no reliably sourced verification that it has actually launched. WP:NMEDIA confers a presumption of notability on radio stations which meet both of two conditions, possessing a broadcast license and having an established broadcast history (i.e. actually operating), but articles have sometimes been created about new radio stations the moment their license approval was granted without regard to the latter condition. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when the station actually launches -- but it's a lot less rare than one might think for a station to be licensed but then not actually launch before its license expires, so the time for an article about a new radio station is when it's actually on the air. Bearcat (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Bearcat. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:04 on August 14, 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We just don't do articles about construction permitted stations; has to air programming and have calls issued before getting an article here. Nate • (chatter) 20:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; unlaunched stations do not enjoy the presumption of notability assumed for established/operating stations, and it's too soon to determine if the station has, or ever will, launch (they have until November 10, 2016 to do so, barring an extension). There's nothing verifiable out there to indicate this station is broadcasting yet — it doesn't even have call letters yet! --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per all of the above. Obviously no prejudice against recreation when it launches (would be good to note this in the close, since that seems to be a common sentiment here). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:59, 22 August 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chen Yongliang

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

I honestly imagine this as A7 and PROD material, none of it is actually convincing and searches hace simply found interviews and PR, ChineseWiki has no article which says enough by itself; there's simply no actual substance. SwisterTwister talk 23:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no indications of notability and my searches do not turn up anything better. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heinz Jürgens (SS officer)

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

Subject fails WP:GNG: significant RS coverage cannot be found; also fails WP:SOLDIER as the award is in dispute: according to the research by Veit Scherzer: "nomination never signed" and "presentation lacks legal justification". The coverage that comes us is from WP:QS author Gordon Williamson (writer). The subject does not have a de.wiki article.

The topic of the notability of Knight's Cross winners has been extensively discussed here: Notability in Knight's Cross Holder Articles; the summary in this subsection (Part 3). This article does not meet the low bar of WP:Soldier for WWII Germany, as the award is questionable, however, PROD has been declined on the grounds that this needs AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The good news is, we can get refunded should Wikpedians become able to track down citations to back up the Knight's Cross claims once this de-Nazification effort has ended. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – there is a significant interest in Knights Cross recipients of all levels. And not just in Argentina. Engleham (talk) 22:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Chris Troutman. No reliable sources to back up the claim to notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- With 7321 awards and the majority of holders being a redlink, I do not think we should allow these articles. UK was (is) much more sparing in its awards of Victoria Cross, which may be the basis of this one. Certainly we cannot keep such articles unless they have details of the citation. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Seems like more Nazification. If the award was never signed, then it doesn't count for much. Also fails general notability. I've also checked google.de and haven't' found anything worthwhile. Indy beetle (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Havik

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

Notability WP:GNG & WP:SOLDIER: RS coverage cannot be found and, according to the article, the award of the Knight's Cross is in question: "German Federal Archives stated on 20 July 2004 that it cannot be verified that Hans Havik (Johann Havik according to Scherzer) received the Knight's Cross". The coverage that comes up comes is from outlets such as Siegrunen by non-RS Richard Landwehr. The subject does not have a de.wiki article. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a Platoon commander is obviously NN, unless he did something particularly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still nothing actually here containing substance for his own convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 05:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arizona Acres Mobile Home Resort, Arizona

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

Not notable; fails WP:GEOLAND. Individual trailer-parks are not inherently notable. Listing in the USGS Geographic Names Information System is not automatic justification for article. A trailer-park or any neighborhood within a city/town needs to be independently notable. This one is not. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A-1 Trailer Park, Arizona for similar discussion. MB 22:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:GEOLAND: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." By definition, the USGS designation is legal recognition of the place. And the USGS listing gives the location the definition of a "populated place". There is nothing, as the nominator claims, in Geoland which says that a populated place which meets the main requirement of Geoland must also show independent notability if it is located within a city/town. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment USGS designation is NOT legal recognition of the place. Legal recognition means that a law has been passed creating a place (a village, city, town, etc.) Just being in the UGGS database is not legal recognition. By that logic, every individual street that exists on a government map would be a legally recognized populated place. The USGS definition of a populated place is "a named community with a permanent human population, usually not incorporated and with no legal boundaries, ranging from rural clustered buildings to large cities and every size in between; includes metropolitan areas, housing subdivisions, developments, modular home communities, and named neighborhoods (village, town, settlement, hamlet, trailer park, etc.). The boundaries of most communities classified as Populated Place are subjective and cannot be determined." Per WP:GEOLAND, populated places fall into two categories: legally recognized which are presumed notable and legally unrecognized which which require coverage in reliable independent source. It goes on to give examples of such areas as "subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc." This trailer park clearly is in the latter.MB 04:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Actually, that's incorrect. USGS is a legal entity of the US Government, which recognizes the existence of the populated place. Your comment regarding streets is patently absurd. On the list of USGS definitions, can you point out where what you purport is the case? (Here's a hint, it doesn't: USGS Definitions). What you state above would fall under WP:OR, since it is your interpretation of what would constitute a "legal recognition". Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, the USGS is a legal entity of the US Government. It maintains a database of place names which pretty much includes any name ever used on a map in the US. Existence in this database does not constitute legal recognition. My analogy to street names is not absurd. Every city (also a legal entity) maintains a database of streets within its boundaries. All those streets are not "legally recognized populated places" even though they are officially (by a government entity) recognized. You are claiming that since the USGS is a legal entity, any name it lists in a database is "legally recognized". This quote " 'Legally recognized' means there is a law that recognizes it. Post offices, maps, etc. have nothing to do with it." is from Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(geographic_features)/Archive_2#Legal recognition and I certainly agree with it.MB 04:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - but the USGS is the legal entity tasked with categorizing geological features. City databases are not. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete upon inspection, these all appear to be non-notable neighbourhoods within recognized communities where you can park on mobile home. GEOLAND does not automatically confer notability, therefore. GEOLAND is expressly not a carte blanche for every subdivision. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and my own standards. I can't verify that this subdivision has even two homes in it. Bearian (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- non notable sub development. Sufficient RS coverage cannot be found. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete it's a subdivision not an official location. LibStar (talk) 07:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aristocrat Trailer Park

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

Not notable; fails WP:GEOLAND. Individual trailer-parks are not inherently notable. Listing in the USGS Geographic Names Information System is not automatic justification for article. A trailer-park or any neighborhood within a city/town needs to be independently notable. This one is not. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A-1 Trailer Park, Arizona for similar discussion. MB 22:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:GEOLAND: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." By definition, the USGS designation is legal recognition of the place. And the USGS listing gives the location the definition of a "populated place". There is nothing, as the nominator claims, in Geoland which says that a populated place which meets the main requirement of Geoland must also show independent notability if it is located within a city/town. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete upon inspection, these all appear to be non-notable neighbourhoods within recognized communities where you can park a mobile home. GEOLAND does not automatically confer notability, therefore. GEOLAND is expressly not a carte blanche for every subdivision. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First, this appears not to exist any more or is so small only to have had two visitors tagged in facebook. I can't find any reliable sources this still exists. As such, it fails my standards for subdivisions. Bearian (talk) 19:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a non notable sub-divisions. I cannot find any secondary sources on it. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo Mobile Home Park

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

Not notable; fails WP:GEOLAND. Individual trailer-parks are not inherently notable. Listing in the USGS Geographic Names Information System is not automatic justification for article. A trailer-park or any neighborhood within a city/town needs to be independently notable. This one is not. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A-1 Trailer Park, Arizona for similar discussion. MB 22:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:GEOLAND: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." By definition, the USGS designation is legal recognition of the place. And the USGS listing gives the location the definition of a "populated place". There is nothing, as the nominator claims, in Geoland which says that a populated place which meets the main requirement of Geoland must also show independent notability if it is located within a city/town. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete upon inspection, these all appear to be non-notable neighbourhoods within recognized communities where you can park a mobile home. GEOLAND does not automatically confer notability, therefore. GEOLAND is expressly not a carte blanche for every subdivision. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. From a couple of quick Google searches, I found that it appears to be fairly big: it covers a large tract on Google Maps, and three condos have been recently on sale. It's not clear if hundreds or thousands of people live there. I'll give it the benefit of doubt that it passes. A news search shows different but similarly named park was hit by a tornado. Bearian (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but you're the one who doesn't seem to have done his BEFORE work -- as you seem to insinuate the nominator hasn't. Did you notice that the Google news coverage of the trailer park by this name that was damaged by a tornado was in Oklahoma, all this article is about one in Arizona? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked at the google satellite image and counted approximately 180 spaces, although I did find a source that claimed there were 261 spaces. So that would be a few hundred residents. There are probably thousands of such Mobile Home parks in Arizona alone (certainly hundreds); this is one of many. I don't see how some of the properties being listed for sale contribute to notability (that is an entirely routine thing). The one actual mention of this place in the news that I could find was, back in 2010, that some residents were upset that there were six RVs when they thought the whole park was restricted to manufactured homes. Nothing here to warrant an article. MB 05:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a non notable subdivision. I cannot locate sufficient sources to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I've been watching this AfD and I frankly believe there's still nothing actually convincing for the needed substance, regardless whether this can be considered an inhabited place for geography. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A neighborhood does not become notable bevcause 3 mobile homes in it are for sale DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apache West Mobile Village, Arizona

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

Not notable; fails WP:GEOLAND. Individual trailer-parks are not inherently notable. Listing in the USGS Geographic Names Information System is not automatic justification for article. A trailer-park or any neighborhood within a city/town needs to be independently notable. This one is not. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A-1 Trailer Park, Arizona for similar discussion. MB 22:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:GEOLAND: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." By definition, the USGS designation is legal recognition of the place. And the USGS listing gives the location the definition of a "populated place". There is nothing, as the nominator claims, in Geoland which says that a populated place which meets the main requirement of Geoland must also show independent notability if it is located within a city/town. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete upon inspection, these all appear to be non-notable neighbourhoods within recognized communities where you can park a mobile home. GEOLAND does not automatically confer notability, therefore. GEOLAND is expressly not a carte blanche for every subdivision. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable subdivision. No indications of notability or significant coverage to pass GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a quick search finds few reliable Ghits. I'm guessing that it does not pass my standards. Bearian (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apache Acres Trailer Park

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

Not notable; fails WP:GEOLAND. Individual trailer-parks are not inherently notable. Listing in the USGS Geographic Names Information System is not automatic justification for article. A trailer-park or any neighborhood within a city/town needs to be independently notable. This one is not. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A-1 Trailer Park, Arizona for similar discussion. MB 22:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:GEOLAND: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." By definition, the USGS designation is legal recognition of the place. And the USGS listing gives the location the definition of a "populated place". There is nothing, as the nominator claims, in Geoland which says that a populated place which meets the main requirement of Geoland must also show independent notability if it is located within a city/town. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete upon inspection, these all appear to be non-notable neighbourhoods within recognized communities where you can park a mobile home. GEOLAND does not automatically confer notability, therefore. GEOLAND is expressly not a carte blanche for every subdivision. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Acres" is stretching it; more like 1/2 a block. This is a very small and ordinary subdivision, according to what I can find online, which is nothing reliable. This also badly fails my standards. Bearian (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassador Downs Mobile Home Park

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

Not notable; fails WP:GEOLAND. Individual trailer-parks are not inherently notable. Note that this was previously PRODed, but the article creator removed the PROD based on belief that listing in the USGS Geographic Names Information System is automatic justification for article. A trailer-park or any neighborhood within a city/town needs to be independently notable. This one is not. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A-1 Trailer Park, Arizona for similar discussion. MB 22:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:GEOLAND: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." By definition, the USGS designation is legal recognition of the place. And the USGS listing gives the location the definition of a "populated place". There is nothing, as the nominator claims, in Geoland which says that a populated place which meets the main requirement of Geoland must also show independent notability if it is located within a city/town. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete upon inspection, these all appear to be non-notable neighbourhoods within recognized communities where you can park a mobile home. GEOLAND does not automatically confer notability, therefore. GEOLAND is expressly not a carte blanche for every subdivision. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found out this place does exist, and is big enough that people post personal ads for, lets say, adventures ... ahem. (I'm not going to link what I found, but if you care to do so, go ahead and plunge into the darker recesses of the Internet. Just clear your browser and/or wash your hands afterwards.) I'm furthermore not convinced that this is that unusual. I'm also going to state again that we are not a webhost for personal ads and real estate offers. Since I can't find any sources as to the subdivisions' population or area, I'm going to say that it probably does not pass my standards. Bearian (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a non notable subdivision with insufficient RS coverage to pass GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as above. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aire Libre Mobile Home Park

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

Not notable; fails WP:GEOLAND. Individual trailer-parks are not inherently notable. Note that this was previously PRODed, but the article creator removed the PROD based on belief that listing in the USGS Geographic Names Information System is automatic justification for article. A trailer-park or any neighborhood within a city/town needs to be independently notable. This one is not. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A-1 Trailer Park, Arizona for similar discussion. MB 22:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:GEOLAND: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." By definition, the USGS designation is legal recognition of the place. And the USGS listing gives the location the definition of a "populated place". There is nothing, as the nominator claims, in Geoland which says that a populated place which meets the main requirement of Geoland must also show independent notability if it is located within a city/town. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete upon inspection, these all appear to be non-notable neighbourhoods within recognized communities where you can park a mobile home. GEOLAND does not automatically confer notability, therefore. GEOLAND is expressly not a carte blanche for every subdivision. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no indication of notability nor independent sources. A non-notable neighborhood / subdivision. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - based on what I found online, there's not much here and no reliable sources about it; it appears to be a small and very run of the mill senior trailer park. Bearian (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If they are within a recognized community like this one is, then they're just a neighborhood. A stand-alone one might be notable . DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admiral Trailer Park, Arizona

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

Not notable; fails WP:GEOLAND. Individual trailer-parks are not inherently notable. Note that this was previously PRODed, but the article creator removed the PROD based on belief that listing in the USGS Geographic Names Information System is automatic justification for article. A trailer-park or any neighborhood within a city/town needs to be independently notable. This one is not. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A-1 Trailer Park, Arizona for similar discussion. MB 22:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:GEOLAND: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." By definition, the USGS designation is legal recognition of the place. And the USGS listing gives the location the definition of a "populated place". There is nothing, as the nominator claims, in Geoland which says that a populated place which meets the main requirement of Geoland must also show independent notability if it is located within a city/town. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete upon inspection, these all appear to be non-notable neighbourhoods within recognized communities where you can park a mobile home. GEOLAND does not automatically confer notability, therefore. GEOLAND is expressly not a carte blanche for every subdivision. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - small subdivision within a larger city, and fails my standards; there is no evidence this trailer park is more than a few homes. Bearian (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If they are within a recognized community like this one is, then they're just a neighborhood. A stand-alone one might be notable . DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adobe Mountain Trailer Park

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

Not notable; fails WP:GEOLAND. Individual trailer-parks are not inherently notable. Note that this was previously PRODed, but the article creator removed the PROD based on belief that listing in the USGS Geographic Names Information System is automatic justification for article. A trailer-park or any neighborhood within a city/town needs to be independently notable. This one is not. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A-1 Trailer Park, Arizona for similar discussion. MB 22:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:GEOLAND: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." By definition, the USGS designation is legal recognition of the place. And the USGS listing gives the location the definition of a "populated place". There is nothing, as the nominator claims, in Geoland which says that a populated place which meets the main requirement of Geoland must also show independent notability if it is located within a city/town. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete upon inspection, these all appear to be non-notable neighbourhoods within recognized communities where you can park a mobile home. GEOLAND does not automatically confer notability, therefore. GEOLAND is expressly not a carte blanche for every subdivision. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable subdivision. No indications of notability or significant coverage to pass GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If they are within a recognized community like this one is, then they're just a neighborhood. A stand-alone one might be notable . DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 28 August 2016 (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 (A7) by RHAWorth. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 16:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ZippyZiggy

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

Potentionally disnotable; I know WP:GOOGLE but mutiple Google searches could not find a company website. Also potentionally advertising/original research Kernosky ^talk2me! 19:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- nothing suggests notability and A7 territory. No sources available. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:43, 24 August 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sepp Draxenberger

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

Previously proposed for deletion by User:K.e.coffman with the rationale: "Notability: subject fails GNG as significant RS coverage cannot be found; Knight's Cross was unlawfully presented." NW (Talk) 22:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- confirming my PROD per above. Does not meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. -- Indy beetle (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A and F Trailer Park, Arizona

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

Not notable; fails WP:GEOLAND. Individual trailer-parks are not inherently notable. Note that this was previously PRODed, but the article creator removed the PROD based on belief that listing in the USGS Geographic Names Information System is automatic justification for article. A trailer-park or any neighborhood within a city/town needs to be independently notable. This one is not. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A-1 Trailer Park, Arizona for similar discussion. MB 22:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:GEOLAND: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." By definition, the USGS designation is legal recognition of the place. And the USGS listing gives the location the definition of a "populated place". There is nothing, as the nominator claims, in Geoland which says that a populated place which meets the main requirement of Geoland must also show independent notability if it is located within a city/town. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete upon inspection, these all appear to be non-notable neighbourhoods within recognized communities where you can park a mobile home. GEOLAND does not automatically confer notability, therefore. GEOLAND is expressly not a carte blanche for every subdivision. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable subdivision. No indications of notability nor significant coverage to pass GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:31, 23 August 2016 (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. Michig (talk) 07:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WURB

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

Delete. Proposed radio station whose construction permit expired unbuilt, meaning it never met WP:NMEDIA's condition about "established broadcast history" (i.e. actually operating). WP:WPRS has sometimes been lax about that condition, allowing radio station articles to be started as soon as the license approval was granted, but we have to crack down on that — if a station has never launched and never will, it doesn't merit its own article. Bearcat (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Station only existed "on paper" and did not actually broadcast. As such, article does not meet NMEDIA or GNG. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:06 on August 14, 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We just don't do articles about construction permitted stations; has to air programming and be FCC-licensed before getting an article here. Also considering its coverage area (which doesn't even flirt with the city line of Gainesville) I don't think this is a serious attempt at broadcasting, but a 'call sign warehouse' only existing to store a coveted sign like WURB; if it has broadcast, it's only been for a few hours here and there to maintain the license and could be airing Broadway showtunes for all we know. Nate • (chatter) 20:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; there's no indication that the station actually is going on the air anytime soon, as efforts to extend the permit seem to be unsuccessful. Though the FCC's database still shows the permit as nominally active, the presumption of notability for broadcast stations does not extent to stations that have not or will not launch, and there really isn't enough out there for WURB to satisfy the general notability guideline. (An apparent unsuccessful attempt to downgrade WURB's signal to get it on the air before the permit was slated to expire also further establishes the never-going-to-launch nature of this station, since the FCC seems to be cracking down on that form of temporary facilities.) --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:48, 20 August 2016 (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. Michig (talk) 07:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KACE (AM)

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

Delete. Proposed radio station whose construction permit expired unbuilt, meaning it never met WP:NMEDIA's condition about "established broadcast history" (i.e. actually operating). WP:WPRS has sometimes been lax about that condition, allowing radio station articles to be started as soon as the license approval was granted, but we have to crack down on that — if a station has never launched and never will, it doesn't merit its own article. Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Station only existed "on paper" and did not actually broadcast. As such, article does not meet NMEDIA or GNG. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:15 on August 14, 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We just don't do articles about construction permitted stations; has to air programming and be FCC-licensed before getting an article here. Nate • (chatter) 20:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the station never went to air; its construction permit expired unbuilt. Stations that never launched do not enjoy the presumption of notability assumed for established/operating stations, especially in the absence of any non-FCC information about the station. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:55, 20 August 2016 (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 as a user has located a photo gallery which confirms that this is some form of content on CFMS-FM. A photo gallery doesn't confer notability in and of itself, obviously, but it's enough confirmation to tip this from "delete" to "redirect". Bearcat (talk) 22:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil Ini FM

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

Delete. Completely unsourced article, with heavy advertorial undertones, about a claimed but not properly verifiable radio station. This definitely does not exist in the form claimed for it here, as its claimed frequency of 105.9 FM would conflict directly with CFMS-FM. I am finding some vague unreliable source hints that this might actually exist as an individual program or HD subchannel on CFMS, but I can't find any reliable source coverage to properly confirm which of those it might be (even CFMS's own website fails to actually list any of its ethnic programs at all, including schedule info only for its mainstream daytime programming), and it's definitely not CFMS's primary branding or format. And, of course, even if it is actually an individual program or an HD subchannel, WP:NMEDIA does not confer an automatic notability freebie on single-station local radio programs or HD subchannels just because they exist — they must be the subject of enough reliable source coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Which this obviously isn't, if I can't even definitively verify that it is a radio program or an HD subchannel — but I can definitively verify that it's not a licensed standalone radio station, which is what this article as written claims that it is. (Redirect to CFMS-FM would also be acceptable, if somebody can confirm that status better than I've been able to, but the total lack of reliable sourcing about this means it can't have a standalone article regardless of what it is.) Bearcat (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The address given on CFMS' "contact us" page is virtually identical to the address on the Tamil Ini FM Facebook page. The only real difference is that CFMS' site lists it as a Scarborough address, and the Tamil Ini FM page lists it as a Markham address — for what it's worth, Markham is CFMS' city of license. I have also seen some other indications that this is a programming block on CFMS, and Tamil is one of the languages that are part of CFMS' ethnic programming. There's also this photo gallery of Tamil Ini FM's September 20, 2015 launch, which clearly shows that its programming uses the studios of "105.9 The Region", which is the overall branding of CFMS-FM (owing to the York Region focus of the station's non-ethnic programming). I'm leaning toward delete and redirect to CFMS-FM; the article is unsourced enough (and I'm not finding much in the way of reliable sources to rectify this issue) that there's really nothing of value to keep and/or merge, but "Tamil Ini FM" may be a plausible search term, and it is clearly not a standalone, separately-licensed station. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(For what it's worth, Tapscott Road actually is in Scarborough rather than Markham, though of course a radio station's studios and/or mailing address don't actually have to be in the official city of license — and the location is certainly near enough to the boundary of Scarborough and Markham that mail addressed to "Tapscott Road, Markham" would probably still get delivered properly. Not that that makes much of a difference to anything notability-wise, but just thought I'd clarify in case anybody's confused.) Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. sufficient consensus � DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Big I Mall

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

Project dropped only_nonsense (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete indeed, their official Facebook page doesn't seem to have been updated in over a year. Anyway, as it stands, I can't find any unaffiliated reliable sources that would meet NPLACE. If this project ever gets revived and built, it could be a different story. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete no verification it was actually built. LibStar (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Shorgul. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pranav Singh

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

Fails WP:GNG. All we have is regurgitated press releases and, of course, Indian newspapers are increadingly happy to act as PR agents for anyone who claims to be a star. Sitush (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shorgul. Not much non-trivial coverage. utcursch | talk 17:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non notable, fails GNG. Perhaps redirect to Shorgul. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Redirect if needed as all of this basically amounts to nothing for actual independent notability, with only film. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 28 August 2016 (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. Delete is somewhat numerically prevalent so going for that. No objection against a redirect, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Santos

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

Article in universe character actress article, that hasn't ever had sources, although various attempts have been made to add some. Various attempts have been made to get rid of it, it was deleted with redirect in early 2015, but the article was restored, or more likely rewritten by user:85.64.56.213 in early 2015. There has been no attempt source it, and there has been plenty of attention on. Several other IP address accounts, specifically set up to work on the series have updated it in the early days, but no sources.

Possibly a redirect would be better. Scope creep (talk) 12:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC) scope_creep[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Without proper sources, there is no need for an article. TTN (talk) 22:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would say redirect to List of The West Wing characters, but the entry on her is very minor, and nothing here is sourced, so probably not worth merging. There may well be a notable real-world individual with this name, so I'm leaning delete. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moses Mathews

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

Despite the claim of being "a notable figure in the American Revolution", there appears to be no particular evidence of notability for Moses Matthews. His service was as a gunsmith, so uncommon but not unique. Merely becoming highly wealthy (whether through business or agriculture) is insufficient. One genealogy page cited cannot be used as a reliable source, but does not show anything warranting an article anyway, and furthermore contradicts the article's claim about his will (the article says he freed all his slaves; his quoted will bequeathed slaves). The other genealogy page is no longer available, but also probably could not have been used as an RS. Note that links to this page have been shoehorned in. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I would be happier if this cited some WP:RS and made clear how large a tract of land he was granted. He might be notable, but I cannot tell. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peterkingiron, I'd be happier if there were some RS. It's questionable whether "A Genealogical History of the Mathews Family from a Remote Period to the Present Time" by Dr. James C. Mathews is sufficiently reliable, but apparently that indicated 270 acres (~1 square km), which does not appear significant. Roster of Revolutionary Soldiers in Georgia does not indicate notability. None of the six volumes of Men of Mark in Georgia list him. He may have passing mention on page 88 of volume 6, but that suggests no particular notability if so. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- On further reflection and understanding how small the land grant was I now agree he is NN. I presume that every regiment would have a person who was able to fix broken muskets, possibly with a status similar to a sergeant or corporal, at most. There is some doubt whether colonels are generally notable; much less such artificers. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are just not enough sources on him out there.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:21, 25 August 2016 (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. Michig (talk) 07:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Farahnaz Forotan

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

seems to fail WP:GNG The Banner talk 08:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sourcing does not exist, see this news google search [1] nothing there. The sources on the page may well be primary, or government related. She is young, attractive, with a highly sympathetic backstory that is being pushed by someone, but that cannot be validated with RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional BLP that fails WP:GNG. Aust331 (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG. I could not find any confirmation of the sources listed. Metaphorical analysis (talk) 23:21, 21 August 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kolte-Patil Developers Ltd

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

NonNotable real estate company. Wikipedia page is written in an advertising style Uncletomwood (talk) 07:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete by all means, PR in its entirety, none of this is actually substantial. SwisterTwister talk 21:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - badly sourced article about a run of the mill real estate ~~development~~ company. ~~There's no evidence they own much, other than what's on the local stock exchanges.~~ I'd be willing to change my mind if somebody can fix it. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC) P.S. I looked again, and found it is traded publicly, but is more of a construction company that what we'd term a developer. Bearian (talk) 20:10, 24 August 2016 (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) 09:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson 5 TV Performances 1974

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

Unsourced affair, not enough for a stand alone article. WP:OR The Banner talk 07:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These weren't the Beatles or Elvis on The Ed Sullivan Show, just routine performances. Not OR though. Also, the bunch should have been packaged as a group Afd. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not denying a possible listing of Jackson 5 TV performances, but this kind of yearly listing doesn't work and the work put into this isn't much (comparing with the source I provided in the 1969 AfD) so it wouldn't take much for a general listing to be made with sourcing. Mr. Magoo (talk) 10:08, 25 August 2016 (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) 09:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson 5 TV Performances 1973

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

Unsourced affair, not enough for a stand alone article. WP:OR The Banner talk 07:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These weren't the Beatles or Elvis on The Ed Sullivan Show, just routine performances. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not denying a possible listing of Jackson 5 TV performances, but this kind of yearly listing doesn't work and the work put into this isn't much (comparing with the source I provided in the 1969 AfD) so it wouldn't take much for a general listing to be made with sourcing. Mr. Magoo (talk) 10:07, 25 August 2016 (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) 09:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson 5 TV Performances 1972

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

Unsourced affair, not enough for a stand alone article. WP:OR The Banner talk 07:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These weren't the Beatles or Elvis on The Ed Sullivan Show, just routine performances. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not denying a possible listing of Jackson 5 TV performances, but this kind of yearly listing doesn't work and the work put into this isn't much (comparing with the source I provided in the 1969 AfD) so it wouldn't take much for a general listing to be made with sourcing. Mr. Magoo (talk) 10:07, 25 August 2016 (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. Don't usually close on 2 !votes however since nomination the article has been substantially sourced and improved and the nominator hasn't refuted the sources nor made any comment inregards to the article improvements so closing a keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TG+

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

Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 06:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite being a collection of live albums, I've managed to find a decent reveiw of the set (ref added to the article) which should give some notability. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough refs to pass. Robman94 (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nitesh Shetty

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

Can't assess notability. Heir of a relatively non notable real estate company in Bangalore Uncletomwood (talk) 07:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as by all means this is PR and nothing substantiates his own independent notability and substance. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- most of the coverage I see is about the company, not the subject, who is not independently notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2016 (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. MBisanz ^talk 21:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Icreon

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

Non Notable Uncletomwood (talk) 07:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a very weird case. The article is poorly sourced and the references cited aren't adequate to prove notability. However, there is an abundance of small mentions in articles that cite, quote, or are attributed to their CEO. There is coverage in Reliable Sources to be found, including this: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jlim/2015/03/10/icreon-tech-moves-offshore-from-india-onshore-to-america/#7257c56928eb ... it's a case where things we might accept as Reliable Sources are buried among real news articles, in respected publications, that we will dismiss because they are "Self Authored". Also,there's an article for their US subsidiary here, which isn't being AFD'd ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icreon_Tech ), while the article for their CEO is being AFD'd as seen here: ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himanshu_Sareen ). ...suggest that their fates should be tied together. BoyRD (talk) 01:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is incredibly all PR, the article itself, its sources and then also the sources above; none of it comes close at all to both being substantial and non-PR, not to mention anything to at least base an acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 23:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a non notable company. Coverage is trivial, PR or PR like, and insufficient to meet GNG and CORPDEPTH. The Forbes article is a puff piece, and it's about Icreon Tech in the first place. (This article could also stand to undergo an AfD). K.e.coffman (talk) 04:47, 26 August 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Himanshu Sareen

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

Non Notable Uncletomwood (talk) 07:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE Some coverage in Reliable Sources to be found, including this: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jlim/2015/03/10/icreon-tech-moves-offshore-from-india-onshore-to-america/#7257c56928eb BoyRD (talk) 01:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- entirely promotional. Sources are insufficient to meet GNG. The Forbes article linked above is primarily about the company, and is also a puff piece. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I quite frankly consider this speedy material, it's that unacceptable. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. Article is purely promotional. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:52, 28 August 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sudhir Prasad

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

Non Notable business executive. Page is full of trivia Uncletomwood (talk) 07:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a non-notable business executive. A COO at a non-notable company generally does not mean that the person is presumed notable. Insufficient coverage in RS to meet GNG otherwise. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as another example of G11 material. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Prasad counts his stint with the Indian Navy for contributing incalculably for the person he is today," G11 it is. DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. Person not notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:53, 28 August 2016 (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 08:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keki Dadiseth

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

Non Notable Uncletomwood (talk) 07:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - that's an undeniably accomplished CV, but none of his career listed implies notability. Blythwood (talk) 21:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see zero coverage in RSes - David Gerard (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this simply suggests an article was started for CV PR. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- this is a corporate CV and strictly promotional. I'm seeing some coverage describing the subject as the "Godfather of India CEO hiring", as well as on his leadership of Hindustan Unilever (a multi-billion $$ company) (link. So the subject may be notable under GNG but the content is too promotional to keep the article. So I recommend deleting this version without prejudice to creating a better article in the future. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Psychic TV discography#Singles. czar 21:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snowflake/Illusive

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

Does not satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 06:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Psychic TV discography. --Michig (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:17, 20 August 2016 (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 does not seem to be evidence of notability at all here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Breezango

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

Not notable. Much like the Social Outcasts and the Golden Truth, this article relies on move sets and week by week updates. Nickag989^talk 19:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nickag989^talk 19:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. They have done nothing notable so far and we should wait until they do make an article for the team.*Treker (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete I used this as an example of a tag team which clearly fails WP:GNG on WT:PW.LM2000 (talk) 07:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Prefall 08:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While still a recent formation, they are a notable team. That the team has been involved in various team feuds while both individuals have not appered as singles wrestlers (in contrast to Jeri-KO) indicates that the team is now a stable entity. Str1977 ^(talk) 14:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG and relies on week by week updates. Sekyaw (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as mentioned by nominator and Sekyaw this is a case of WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS Burroughs'10 (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SAFSMS

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

Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability. Only refs provided are a blog and a brief (one paragraph) summary in a Nigerian paper, on its own insufficient to establish notability. A search turned up no additional significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Also this is the English Wikipedia, not the acronym one, so title would be spelled out if it were ever to be notable. Maybe some day it might. Article right now does not even give a hint what SAF stands for? W Nowicki (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Muddy Magnolias. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Broken People

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

WP:CRYSTAL, inappropriate sourcing, no external coverage. Album is not going to be released for approximately two months. There is nothing that causes this album to meet WP:NALBUMS. MSJapan (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Muddy Magnolias until sufficient sources exist to justify an article. --Michig (talk) 06:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Muddy Magnolias I have seen this trend happening recently, the creation of articles much before an album is released. I'm not sure whether this is for promotional purposes. In any case, I will go with a redirect here as it seems a safe option. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Splinter Test. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sugarmorphoses

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

Does not satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 05:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Splinter Test. I didn't find much coverage. --Michig (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Splinter Test as does not seem independently notable Atlantic306 (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:13, 20 August 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AirX

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

Still nothing at all actually substantial for the needed substance. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below are some sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

"AirX expands its fleet of private jets". Times of Malta. September 24, 2015. Retrieved August 13, 2016.
"Malta-based AirX wins contract to transport the Olympic torch". Malta Today. July 4, 2016. Retrieved August 13, 2016.
"The Kardashians charter Malta-based airline". Times of Malta. July 26, 2016. Retrieved August 13, 2016.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no claim to notability and sources presented at the AfD are not convincing. These are mostly PR-driven or trivial mentions. Insufficient to pass GNG and CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non notable nonscedules airline with purely incidental coverage. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 28 August 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Darien EMS – Post 53

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

Article celebrating a small unit of volunteers who are part of a single city's EMS -- & therefore promotional, containing as promotional articles do, material of interest only to potential or current volunteers or clients.

I know there's a human interest NYT article. If GNG justifies calling this notable, then the justification for removing the article is its fundamental unencyclopedic nature. The basic principle of WP is that it's an encyclopedia . DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's out of CSD territory, however it's still WP:PROMO material, especially when factoring in the fact that the author is possibly from there, judging by content on their user page, and this article was previously PRODed last year. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 19:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While it could be rewritten to not be promotional, and AFD is not cleanup, the fact remains that this fails WP:GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 14:19, 26 August 2016 (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. MBisanz ^talk 21:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kapamilya, Deal or No Deal celebrity players

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

Article borders on WP:INDISCRIMINATE, not to mention that it's merely a list of celebrity contestants on the Philippine edition of Deal or No Deal without any context on its significance, merit or lack thereof. Blake Gripling (talk) 01:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as uncited OR and unclear criteria on what the significance is in the list of celebrities. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- since this is still open, I'm adding that this is indiscriminate "list cruft". K.e.coffman (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2016 (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. MBisanz ^talk 21:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Stanley Cup Western Conference Finals broadcasters

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

Topic not covered in reliable sources and is made up WP:MADEUP. It comprises notable entities but notability in is not inherited or derived. Wikipedia is not a collection for "useful" information that is not notable WP:NOTEVERYTHING.

---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and also delete List of Stanley Cup Eastern Conference Finals broadcasters. It's bad enough we've got List of Stanley Cup Finals broadcasters and List of Stanley Cup playoffs broadcasters (Original Six era). Clarityfiend (talk) 05:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a notable list subject. And I agree with Clarityfiend that List of Stanley Cup Eastern Conference Finals broadcasters should go too. Rlendog (talk) 14:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- My delete !vote to the List of Stanley Cup Finals broadcasters that was subsequently added to the nom. I am not inherently opposed, but since the Stanley Cup final is the ultimate contest of the season and has been around far longer than the current (or any) conferences, I think that issues surrounding the Stanley Cup final are more likely to be notable than earlier contests, and so are not quite comparable. Rlendog (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Adding to this discussion:
List of Stanley Cup Finals broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Stanley Cup Eastern Conference Finals broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I should note that both these articles also do not have much reliable sources. And other than the period when the Stanley Cup Finals and Conference Finals take place in late-May/early-June, all three pages seem to be primarily edited by IPs, which (with the lack of good reliable sources) makes it difficult to determine what to verifiable and what is vandalism. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted due to late addition of additional articles to nomination. postdlf (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no reason why this needs a stand alone article, given that we have a television section in current Stanley Cup playoffs articles. Some the older playoff articles do need a television section added to them, however that is not a reason to keep all of these articles around. Deadman137 (talk) 20:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 02:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Language of Business (TV Series)

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

Delete. Poorly sourced and advertorially toned article about a television series produced by a single independent television station. There's exactly zero reliable source coverage about the show cited here; of the seven "references" quoted here, four are primary sources, and the three that are reliable sources all entirely fail to contain even a glancing mention of this show's existence, but are instead being used in a fashion best described as "hey, this other media outlet wrote about this business trend [insert source about that other media outlet writing about that trend] just like something The Language of Business covered [insert no source about The Language of Business covering it at all]." As always, a television show is not entitled to a Wikipedia article just because it exists; reliable source coverage about it must be present to support inclusion, but nothing like that has been shown here. Bearcat (talk) 02:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; there doesn't seem to be much in the way of any reliable sources that have actually covered this show. The tone also seems to suggest that the article simply exists to promote the show, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia. There's nothing significant enough about the show to merit even a mention at WBIN-TV (the station that airs the show), much less its own article. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are 2 other sources discussing the show:

https://plus.google.com/+Radioentrepreneurs/posts/PE5LqReTER6

http://www.founderswire.com/the-coaches/what-ive-learned-about-business-being-a-tv-show-host/

It is advertised on WBIN's programming guide and also referenced on several other public access stations in 24 states across the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gstoller (talk • contribs) 20:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Google+ post does not support notability as it's social media and not a reliable source. An article written by a host of the TV series on a press release platform does not support notability, as topics are not allowed to write themselves into Wikipedia. Inclusion in the host station's programming guide, or on the website of another station that carries it, does not support notability as those are primary sources. Reliable and notability-supporting referencing in a Wikipedia article is real media coverage about the topic in an unaffiliated source, and nothing else. Bearcat (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wcquidditch: Thank you for your reply. Let me give a few bullets of background, please: 1) We have gone through multiple revisions with Wikipedia, including my jumping on forums to ensure we're not being promotional. I have enough experience with Wikipedia, etc. and am trying to be 125% respectful of netiquette and content. 2) This is 95% an all volunteer team. It's been a 3-year project and we are honored to now be on commercial TV. This has *never* been a money making endeavor... just so everything is clear in terms of intentions. 3) This just arrived this morning and was *not* authored by me: http://www.founderswire.com/the-coaches/boston-prof-turns-tv-pro-with-language-of-business/ Hopefully this will qualify as a bona fide source 4) We are very appreciative of the offer to be on Wikipedia and would appreciate your further consideration, please.

Sincerely,

Greg Stoller — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gstoller (talk • contribs) 15:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That new link is still not a reliable source, as it's still a promotional platform to which anybody can submit content about anything they want. The fact that you were the writer of the first Founderswire link was not the only reason I said that link wasn't acceptable sourcing; as I already noted, it's a user-generated "crowdsourced content" site that can be used to distribute PR materials, not a real, well-established or reputable media outlet (the fact that the link just happened to arrive as brand new content this morning, for example, says volumes: it exists because you or somebody else associated with the show put it there this morning to create a new "source" for this article.) Wikipedia is not a free PR/advertising platform in which any topic, volunteer-based organization or otherwise, is automatically entitled to have an article just because it exists — an article has to be earned on the basis of reliable source coverage which verifies a specific claim of notability that would satisfy WP:NMEDIA, and a topic cannot get itself in the door by creating and press-releasing its own "coverage" about itself. And you claim to have "enough experience with Wikipedia", yet you don't know that you have to post new comments to this discussion at the bottom of the page, not the top? Bearcat (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is Avi from Israel. I don't use Wikipedia so don't have an account. But I do teach business. Why can't you leave this person / show alone? I follow it for 3 years. They're all volunteers and while I do not know host I know several people who do. Heard he's very honorable, hardworking guy. He keeps replying trying to help you out and trying to do right thing. I Googled this Founderwire and it's not crowdsourcing. Owner used to be a journalist for boston newspaper. It's private company. Host (Stoller) has been quoted in newspaper like over 75 times and has separately written his own business articles. My students learn lot from this show. That's enough proof for me. I was looking up something on the show and see this. Please leave site up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.70.2.147 (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First: new comments go at the bottom of the page if they're not a reply to a prior comment, not just any random place in the entire discussion that you want to add a new comment. Secondly: journalists can and do cross the thin line from journalism to PR work all the time, so the fact that Founderwire's owner used to write for a newspaper in Boston does not, in and of itself, make Founderwire a reliable source: the purpose and structure of Founderwire itself make that determination, not the owner's past employment history, and the purpose and structure of Founderwire is to serve as a press-release distribution platform. Thirdly: people and things get Wikipedia articles by being the subject of media coverage, not by getting quoted in coverage where they're not the subject or by being the author of media content. Finally: I don't believe for a second that you weren't asked to come vote, but that's not how Wikipedia works. Articles are kept or deleted based on the arguments advanced by established Wikipedians in accordance with our policy requirements, and an AFD discussion cannot be derailed by an organized campaign of editors with no prior history of contributing to Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not owe anything an article just because its founder is a nice guy — a Wikipedia article is earned on the basis of reliable source coverage about the topic in sources independent of that topic's own PR materials about itself, and if coverage that meets our reliable sourcing standards doesn't exist then a Wikipedia article doesn't get to exist either. We're an encyclopedia, not a free advertising platform. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, bottom of page. But I did not appreciate you comment. I not asked to do anything by nobody. I was just online on this site. I don't know what Wikipedian is but I have honor myself! Rude to suggest otherwise. I now help to find reliable sources to end this debate. Enough! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.68.74.193 (talk) 04:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Amir from Israel, too. I have never met Stoller or anyone else with this show. I just like it. No one asked me to comment but I will plan to help, too, and find some sources. It's a good, educational program. If need be, I will register for Wikipedia, too with account.

Delete. Based on the information provided here, clear promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 28 August 2016 (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. MBisanz ^talk 21:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Straus

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

vanity puff-piece by single-purpose editor obviously close to subject. Others raised concerns about notability previously. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable medical doctor, businessman and memoirist, in the last case his work is not even yet published.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. He's notable all right. I did a Google search; and, after tiptoeing gingerly between sheaves of art gallery press releases, discovered an incident which the article strangely does not yet mention, but which I am writing up - Straus resigned from Boston University Medical School and several other positions, and was stripped of Federal funding for cancer research, after being implicated in a major case of scientific malpractice. I have half-a-dozen WP:RS citations ranging 1980-2007; this one is from the New York Times. Narky Blert (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Make that 14 good citations from newspapers, scientific journals, and books from reputable publishers (university presses and the like) ranging 1980-2015. None of them looks like a hatchet job. Some cite sources I can't find online. This seems to have been a major scandal. I'll need a day or so to distil the information down into a succinct WP:NPOV narration. Narky Blert (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New section added, fully referenced. I also removed a {{db-author}} tag. I affirm my original recommendation of strong keep. Narky Blert (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've just removed a second WP:G7 request on the article made within the last 24 hours: not supportable, after another editor has worked on it and has added WP:RS info. Draw your own conclusions. Narky Blert (talk) 23:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Article does appear a bit biased, however the fact that he is a Fellow of the American College of Physicians puts it in a bit of a gray area with WP:PROF, specifically with criteria point 3. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 19:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, but needs rewriting to eliminate the trivia (I've started) . The only real question is emphasis, per BLP1E. Since the negative material is not a single event but ongoing, and is related to his professional qualifications, I think it qualifies for an article. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. sufficient consensus � DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Implicit collaboration

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

Notability: an article on non-notable "emergent discipline" possibly consisting entirely of original research. The artcile is cited to a book by non-notable authors and I cannot locate any other sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on quick look at Google Books. These two words are used together quite a bit, but not especially in the way talked about in this article. Seems to be neologism here, just two words in other places.Borock (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No real evidence that this is an "emergent discipline", or that it is worthy of note in an encyclopedia.TheBlueCanoe 02:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perhaps by now every combination of two words has had someone write one or two articles declaring it to be the next big thing. Not notable until someone else notices it. W Nowicki (talk) 20:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This article might be restorable is substantial independent reliable sources are found. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nirvana Nokwe

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

Doesn't quite meet WP:NACTOR or WP:MUSICBIO. Only references I can find that aren't user-generated are two brief mentions in news articles. Drm310 (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PROD-worthy article on non-notable individual. Searching for sources brought about nothing worth referencing. The promotional tone here is tacky. — Sam Sailor 01:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:26, 20 August 2016 (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. MBisanz ^talk 21:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bidadari Bus Interchange

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

This is WP:CRYSTALBALL. The bus interchange is still in the planning stage. Even the name "Bidadari Bus Interchange" has not been stated anywhere and is a purely conjectural name. There is a reliable source see this which says that there will be a bus interchange in Bidadari, Singapore, but the its name and other details have not been finalised. I would suggest to delete this and create when at least the name has been confirmed. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:43, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete' As per Nom. John Jaffar Janardan (talk) 04:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC) striking confirmed sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 03:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a case of Wp:TOOSOON ias even the name is not settled Atlantic306 (talk) 03:23, 28 August 2016 (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. Wizardman 23:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Naldehra Golf Club

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

Notability: no significant coverage in RS can be found; article reads as a promotional brochure and has been tagged "Notability" since 2008. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 15:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Lonely Planet reference confirms the history of set up by Lord Curzon in 1900, notable historic golf course. Atlantic306 (talk) 03:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- would Lonely Planet be considered WP:ROUTINE coverage for a tourist attraction? K.e.coffman (talk) 06:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
it depends what it says. If it shows the historic nature of the attraction, then maybe. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what it says (link):

"Established in 1905 by British viceroy Lord Curzon (who loved the place so much he named his daughter after it), the course is set among tall cedars. It’s a challenging course with the added quirk that many holes share the same fairway, criss-crossing it at different angles. Hire a caddy (₹150 per nine holes) or you won’t know where you’re going. You can have a drink and snack in the clubhouse bar whether you're playing or not."

Does not seem sufficient coverage to sustain an entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

....The information is entirely PR, and in that case and with that said, none of it would help for the notability here; what may hit the ball is "Hire a caddy (₹150 per nine holes) or you won’t know where you’re going. You can have a drink and snack in the clubhouse bar whether you're playing or not". This is frankly G11 and I have tagged as such. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the above quote was mainly from the reference not the article so it does not qualify for G11. The history confirmed by Lonely Planet is enough IMO for the article to be kept. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the above is actually currently included in the article. Quote:

"Equipment is available on hire as well. Hire a caddy (Rs40/70 for 9/18 holes) or you won’t know where you’re going.^[1]"

References

^ http://www.lonelyplanet.com/india/himachal-pradesh/eastern-himachal-pradesh/activities/other/naldehra-golf-course

So this appears to be a copyvio, as it's word for word from the Lonely Planet. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In a search of Google and Google Books I could find no independent coverage, except for the one blurb from Lonely Planet. Multiple sources are required for notability. One would think that a golf course this old and with this romantic a history would have significant coverage, but I could not find any. --MelanieN (talk) 02:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Parkour. Apart from the first, the "keep" opinions do not remotely make sense. Sandstein 13:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Freestyle walking

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)

Fails WP:GNG. I cannot find significant coverage of this topic when searching for sources. The only decent RS I found was Vice, but one interview with someone about a non-notable documentary doesn't seem enough to be "significant coverage". Also found a few mentions of it (e.g., [2], [3], [4]). Searches for sources suggest there's very little written on this topic.

The current article has no reliable sources (and tags for sources date back to 2008). I just removed a bunch of junk from the article and it's not much better.

I think deletion is best. Would be okay with a merge/redirect to parkour. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination lists a bunch of sources and concludes by suggesting merger. There are more sources to be found such as Urban Physical Education and AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 09:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination lists one source and 3 places where it's mentioned in passing. I was trying to demonstrate WP:BEFORE. There's no significant coverage per WP:GNG. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have been douing it since 2014 and it is the best sport. U guys dont even know wut its like to pull a craigy special at high speed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.105.253 (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, instead of a standalone article, could a paragraph be added to Variants of walking? Coolabahapple (talk) 14:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Daddy likes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2Glad2BYourDad (talk • contribs) 23:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep think about all the muscular young men doing all of these tricks as their rock hard bodies glisten with sweat and oils — YoungTwink6969 (talk) 00:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Freestyle Walkers/podracers unite! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.32.74 (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough reliable sources to describe it. Redirect to Parkour per RickInBaltimore below. I'm also concerned about the several accounts above with few or no other edits who turned up to support keep without offering good reasons. I hope the closing admin will keep that in mind. Smartyllama (talk) 20:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to parkour. From reading the article, this in essence is parkour. Seeing as the article is not sourced, if the info in here can't be sourced, a redirect to parkour is fine, otherwise a mention may suffice. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect - Ditto on RickinBaltimore's statement. The only RS I was able to find was the Vice interview mentioned by nominator, and even the interview subject admits that it sounds exactly like parkour. Lizzymartin (talk) 22:58, 26 August 2016 (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 02:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mandy Dee

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

Porn actress, fails WP:PORNBIO - üser:Altenmann >t 16:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails PORNBIO without award wins. No reliable source coverage to pass GNG. Citations in the article are blog posts and porn site database entries. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no major awards nor any other notable presence in the media, so she clearly fails WP:PORNBIO. -- fdewaele, 21 August 2016, 0:13 CET.
Delete per the logic of my original PROD, which mirrors what everybody else is saying here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails PORNBIO, which is too lenient, in my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the guidelines for pornographic biographies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Montanabw^(talk) 05:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It Russian porn actress, I ask Mandy Dee subordinate criteria Elena Berkova and Edelweiss (actress), and not other things.--Jürgen Klinsmann1990 (talk) 05:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Please note, Jürgen Klinsmann1990, that those other two people have performed outside of pornography, and have better coverage in in reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 08:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails every policy on this site!. –Davey2010^Talk 22:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- only award nominations and fails GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Fails WP:PORNBIO, and quite frankly irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.74.158 (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2016 (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 as hoax/WP:SNOW. There is no good evidence to suggest that an award by this exact name exists. A similarly titled Times of India award exists and something sort of similar from the Calcutta Times, but are not the same thing as this one and given the claims in the article, it's extremely unlikely that there wouldn't be some coverage of this in English. The nominator is able to perform foreign language searches in Hindi and Bengali and doesn't seem to have found anything - which itself lends a lot of credence to the hoax claims, given that it's almost certain that some coverage would exist in one of those two languages. At best this might be something someone came up with one day and at worst deliberate misinformation. However even if this does exist, the lack of coverage seems to suggest that it's non-notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kolkata Most Desirable Actor

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

I have a feeling that this article is a hoax. I have checked Google web, Google news, but not getting any result other than Wikipedia's mirror. The closest search result is Times' Kolkata's most desirable men, but it seems to be a different. All the references are unclear, a number of them are dead and user generated. The article itself is written in an unclear way "who goes this award" - not clear. Tito Dutta (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

del' nonverifiable. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah, going through Google I can find very little evidence that this a thing (most of the hits are mirrors of this article). If this was a real thing, you'd expect there to be more information about it, like who runs it? under what circumstances are the awards given out? The article is deliberately vague on these points, which leads me to suspect a hoax. Anyway, there certainly aren't reliable secondary sources to back any of this up. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails WP:N per source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It looks like it somewhat mirrors the ToI's list, but it differs somewhat. For example, the link I posted is from 2013 and has the first name in common (Dev) but the other two names don't fit exactly. (Jeet is second in the ToI list while he's third in the Kolkata list.) I'm getting the impression that this is something that someone made up in their own time, especially as the article makes a claim of an online show and claims to have at least one notable person as a judge. With all of that, it's rather unlikely that there wouldn't be something more conclusive. I also figure that if Tito couldn't find evidence to suggest that this exists, that in itself is an extremely persuasive argument that this is a hoax. If no one minds, I think I might speedy this as a hoax. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:10, 21 August 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016-17 Premier League results

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

PROD contested without motivation (prod was endorsed by second editor, but then prod tag was removed by IP). The article is not notable per consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football and previous AfDs has led to deletion. For example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014-15 Premier League Results, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 A-League results, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Indian Super League fixtures, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015-16 Pre-season friendly fixtures for Primera División clubs (women) all being deleted. Qed237 (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 16:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 16:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous consensus that these articles are not notable. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 16:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per previous consensus. Giant Snowman 17:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Much like the previous consensus, I would say to delete this. Matt294069 is coming 02:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the previous consensus has not changed. – Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 18:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - useless list. Most of the information is already included in the season articles for each individual club. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:35, 28 August 2016 (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 Headset (audio)#Telephone headsets. MBisanz ^talk 21:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Handset lifter

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

Non-notable topic; "sourced" to (and I quote) "common sense" and two commercial websites. Orange Mike | Talk 21:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In its current state, there is no verifiable notability. While I don't necessarily have a problem with sources from commercial sites, these just go to the main page of the site, and are therefore useless. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not sure if it will be of any help, but there are a number of patents and a number of scholarly articles listed here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- reply - when you take out the patents, what's left is an article about voice recognition in law offices. I'm not seeing the WP:GNG here. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, that's why I voted to delete it. I don't have the time to look through every one of those, however, and I don't see how this topic merits more than a paragraph in the Telemarketing article. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I know not everyone has time to read through all the scholarly articles, but does that necessarily mean that the article should be deleted? Looking into it, whilst recent products seem to be mainly developed by Plantronics, I note in the patent info there are several similar devices for lifting the handset off hook, many of them not related to the use of a wireless handsfree telephone headset system. It might be interesting to explore the role a handset lifter had in other areas of telecommunications. I think it has a place on Wikipedia, but perhaps not an entire page, so at least until the content can be increased, I'd vote for a Merge to Headset (audio) Wireless Headsets Section. Landlineman (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Headset (audio)#Telephone headsets (or the Wireless headsets section, either is fine). I have added three sources verifying basic facts about handset lifters. With theses sources, I think there is enough verifiability to support and merge into the headset article as an alternative to deletion per WP:ATD. Such lifters are still used by disabled folk. I did not find enough in-depth sourcing to pass notability, per WP:GNG, so a merge seems best. --Mark viking (talk) 21:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Agree with Mark viking. The page should be merged to Headset (audio)#Telephone headsets. Meatsgains (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2016 (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 Elf deities. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Solonor Thelandira

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

This character fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 15:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Elf deities. BOZ (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. I am seeing no evidence of independent notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ... and why are we continually handling these one at a time? Jclemens (talk) 04:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it works. If you have alternative suggestions, please share them. I've personally merged a number of articles without taking them to AfD as an alternative. While it sometimes works fine, other times, people revert me and then refuse to engage in meaningful discussion (see Talk:Firestar (Transformers) and Talk:Mammon (Dungeons & Dragons)). I'm then left with few options unless I want to risk being accused of edit warring. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per BOZ. Side note: I would prefer to continue the individual discussions on these, rather than repeat the "bulk delete/revert/bulk AFD" wars of a few years back.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:27, 28 August 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Valour Agency

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

Dubious notability, doesn't appear to meet WP:CORP. GAB^gab 14:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 19:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no indications of notability and I'm not seeing any coverage that does not originate from the company. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:17, 22 August 2016 (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. Player clearly meets subject-specific guideline, no need to continue this discussion for administrative reasons only. No reasonable chance of solid deletion arguments being presented. Fenix down (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lukas Nottbeck

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

Non-notable German footballer. The external link makes this not technically eligible for WP:BLPPROD, and WP:PROD was removed by Sir Sputnik. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:FOOTY has played in 3. Liga a Fully Professional League as per this Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Having played in 3. Liga, Nottbeck meets WP:NFOOTY. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 33 appearances in a league listed in WP:FPL. The prod removal noted this. So why has User:GeoffreyT2000 brought us here? Nfitz (talk) 16:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable footballer who has made an appearance in a fully-professional league. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David McMillan (footballer)

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. JMHamo (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 14:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - 9 Europa League appearances, 6 goals in 9 Champions League appearances. 65 goals in 175 top-tier Irish appearances. None of these things meet WP:NFOOTY but I'd think he'd have gathered some press - but I've not had time to research. Nfitz (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ridiculous nomination as player is clearly notable. He has made 9 Europa League appearances, scored 6 goals in 9 Champions League appearances. Will be playing in European Group Stages later this season. Exactly what does an Irish semi-pro footballer have to do to be notable. Djln Djln (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What does an Irish footballer need to do - 30 seconds of a late-game substitutation for about-to-be-regulated Little Nowhere FC, in the 4th tier of English football would do it. Nfitz (talk) 21:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 18:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - League of Ireland Premier Division is not presently listed as a fully-professional league, so any matches played in cup competitions do not meet the requirements of WP:NFOOTY, even against clubs which are part of an FPL. As McMillan has not play senior international football or in the Olympics, he must meet WP:GNG. The first, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth references in the article are routine coverage and therefore cannot be used to meet GNG. The second reference is about McMillan receiving a minor writers' award, hardly enough to generate presumed notability. I cannot find any other coverage in Google which could be used to meet GNG. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 19:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you Google "David McMillan" and Dundalk you get 91,600 results but he's not notable. Really ? And the "minor writers' award" has it's own article – League of Ireland Premier Division Player of the Month Djln Djln (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as one would expect, there's a lot of media coverage. In particular, there's a recent profile [5] that meets WP:GNG. Nfitz (talk) 21:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has not played in a fully pro league, does not pass the notability guidelines for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment He is currently the top scorer in the 2016–17 UEFA Champions League. Is that really not notable enough for you ? Djln Djln (talk) 01:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am currently working on improving this article at my sandbox. Some of his more recent career is definitely notable. I recommend editors check my sandbox before voting to delete article. Djln Djln (talk) 02:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See [6], [7], [8], [9], and [10]. RonSigPi (talk) 02:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG and has made multiple appearances in European Competitions.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This recent purge of Irish top division footballers clearly demonstrates a need to be rather less dogmatic about the application of WP:FPL. While it seems to enjoy exalted status amongst a handful of unfortunate Wiki Geeks (© FourFourTwo), let's not forget it's only an essay. And a dubious essay at that. We can see from User:Djln/sandbox and WP:Articles for deletion/Kevin Doherty (footballer) that a player with a sustained career in the top division of Irish football will invariably attract non-trivial coverage in national media. 2A02:C7D:46F1:2B00:2591:F14C:A077:791 (talk) 13:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - probably scrapes through on GNG. Giant Snowman 17:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Fails NFOOTY, but passes wider GNG. Significant, non-routine coverage can be found in the sources shown above. Fenix down (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have now updated article and in my opinion it clearly passes any sensible notability criteria. Stats in infobox and lower section are not 100% accurate, mainly because he is still active. Any volunteers to double check/update stats ? Djln Djln (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In light of the sources provided by RonSigPi, I am changing my !vote. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 20:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly passes the WP:GNG criteria, particularly in light of extensive recent coverage nationally and internationally. --IrishTennis (talk) 13:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily satisfies WP:GNG with ample coverage from numerous sources. Smartyllama (talk) 14:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, more than enough media coverage to pass WP:GNG. --Jimbo^[online] 16:39, 26 August 2016 (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. czar 03:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DXRacer

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

Spammy article entirely based on press releases and blogs, no evidence of substantive independent coverage. Guy (Help!) 14:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not seeing third-party significant coverage. Neutrality^talk 16:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still nothing coming close at all for actually establishing both a convincing and substantial article. SwisterTwister talk 22:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no indications of notability. I cannot locate RS coverage beyond PR and trivial mentions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:09, 26 August 2016 (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 (A7) by Nyttend . (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Terraform Realty

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

Orphan article, sole source is a press release. Guy (Help!) 14:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not seeing third-party significant coverage. Neutrality^talk 16:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I found some trivial coverage about the legal matter the company was involved in, but that's about it for independent coverage. What I'm seeing does not rise to the level of CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:34, 23 August 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Label Records

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

Speedy deletyed in 2007, this version has "referenciness" based on blogs and press releases, but nothing indicating it passes actual notability and sourcing guidance. Guy (Help!) 14:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not seeing third-party significant coverage. Neutrality^talk 16:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A record label is considered notable if and when it's the subject of coverage in reliable sources — it is not granted a presumption of notability if the sourcing is piled almost entirely on blogs, press releases, user discussion forums and Soundcloud or Beatport profiles. The same user also created an article about Tony Sour (the label founder) at the same time, which was deleted a month ago per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Sour as not properly substantiating notability per WP:NMUSIC either. Bearcat (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no indications of notability and I'm only seeing trivial mentions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Bbb23 (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Mason (singer)

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:MUSIC. No new claims of notability since the article was previously deleted, only claims are having been a member of two non-notable bands and having been a contestant on The X Factor (U.S. season 1). The only new source since the article was last deleted is [11], this is still not enough to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. January (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY DELETE - This is going to be a sock of Sockpuppet investigations/Mason8252, who has been trying to force these articles for a few years now. See Richard Mason(musician), and former ones at The Night Runners, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Night Runners, Draft:The Night Runners, [Draft:The Night Runners (2)]]. Crow^Caw 21:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note I've deleted the article unser G5 criteria as it was created by a confirmed sock account.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While schools are often considered notable, this unaccredited one apparently isn't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chandpur Chandipur Riyajul Ulm

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

A school that fails WP:GNG and WP:VERIFY - is not listed on the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education's list of accredited schools. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The longstanding consensus of the community as reflected in WP:NSCHOOL (a guideline, not an essay) is that schools are held to the same notability requirements as other organizations, namely, that they have received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Cf. WP:Notability § Notability requires verifiable evidence ("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."); WP:OUTCOMES § Citing this page in AfD ("[N]otability is demonstrated by the mustering of evidence that an article topic is the subject of multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in trustworthy independent sources."). Topics that do not meet the notability requirement "are not retained as separate articles." WP:FAILN. See WP:WHYN and WP:NOTDIRECTORY for an explanation of why we have this requirement.
In this case, there is virtually no qualifying coverage of the subject, so the article must be deleted. Rebb ing 14:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An unaccredited school that fails WP:GNG. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:09, 23 August 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jasper Gray

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

19-year-old self-published singer, sources are not WP:RS. Not even YouTube famous, it seems. Guy (Help!) 13:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the available coverage does not show that the subject meets any of the applicable notability guidelines (GNG, BASIC, or CREATIVE). I suspect the article is eligible for speedy deletion (A7), but, since we're already here, a non-speedy deletion that precludes recreation is appropriate. Rebb ing 16:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

St Forbadil

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

The page appears to be a long-lived hoax. No reliable sources exist for this supposed saint. The last reference named on the page, the supposed book St Forbadil: Forgotten Bishop of the Mercians, appears to not exist at all; it generates no Google results apart from this page. Other details, like the supposed term "Forbadilian" and the subject's supposed connection to Alfred Jarry, likewise have zero support. It's possible that the page was created to support a brewery. Calamondin12 (talk) 13:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no evidence of independent source coverage of this saint I could find (much less independent reliable source coverage). Everymorning (talk) 03:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above - looks like a 'legend' created to give 'history' to a small brewery. I wish the brewery luck, but we are not here to help them sell beer. As to "It was one of the words that Dr. Samuel Johnson omitted from his dictionary of 1755", he also omitted squinglehaft, crindle, and juntor. I wonder why? Peridon (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I note it is also nominated for speedy. The list of Bishops of Lichfield (alias of the Mercians - and in which he ought to appear) is not necessarily complete, but that is part of the general dearth of local sources on Mercia and is not a reflection on the completeness of that article. We know about the Synod of Whitby primarily from Bede and the life of St Wilfrid. There just are no more sources. The chances of anyone coming up with new authentic material on a "forgotten" bishop is unlikely to say the least. His appearance as bishop of the Mercians at the Synod of Whitby is not credible. It is possible there was a Celtic Church surviving in parts of West Mercia, but we know absolutely nothing of it. If the alleged book existed, I would expect it to be advertised on Amazon or other book sales websites; but it is not. The whole thing stinks of invention or fiction, which we call WP:HOAX AND WP:OR. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While paper references are good, I'm always suspicious when they are the only sources for something that looks dubious anyway. I saw this at CSD, but didn't delete it as (for me) it wasn't blatant enough. But I didn't decline it either... Peridon (talk) 10:49, 22 August 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Beds

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

Article is based entirely on a handful of press releases. Tone is that of a PR announcement. Guy (Help!) 13:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no indications of notability and does not meet GNG. I'm only seeing trivial / PR coverage. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as entirely PR, nothing at all consisting of non-PR substance or anything otherwise notable-consisting. SwisterTwister talk 22:41, 23 August 2016 (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 indicates that the sources provided do not justify an article, they don't appear to go in depth much. Also concerns about the article being a repost. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil tulsiani

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

No evidence of any notability - another real-estate person. Refs show he exists and the rest are recursive refs back to a Wikipedia mirror and two press releases. Nothing here gets close to notability. Fails WP:GNG . I would be content to see this speedy deleted if others agree it is merited. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Has been deleted as Sunil Tulsiani [12] FITINDIA (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found three sources that are independent, likely reliable, and offer more than passing mentions of the subject. Interestingly, one of these was improperly cited in the article (showing the subject as author); and, unless there are two people by this name in Ontario, two soures show that the subject may have engaged in some unsavory business practices:
- Langton, Jerry (November 13, 2008). "Investment Groupies". Business. Toronto Star. Archived from the original on August 20, 2016. Retrieved August 20, 2016.
- McFarland, Janet (February 27, 2015). "Serial Fraudster Headed Back to Court". The Globe and Mail. Archived from the original on August 20, 2016. Retrieved August 20, 2016.
- "OSC Fines, Bars Pair in $4 Million Ponzi". Advisor.ca. March 22, 2012. Archived from the original on August 20, 2016. Retrieved August 20, 2016.
Rebb ing 16:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Given the borderline notability and the fact that he's basically only known for one negative event, I think we should delete this. --Randykitty (talk) 19:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have qualifying nontrivial coverage, but it's not enough to meet the "significant coverage" required by the applicable guidelines. Rebb ing 19:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam and having previously been deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:32, 26 August 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JAC Vapour

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

No substantial independent coverage, all sources are, or are based on, press releases (see churnalism). A tiny, privately held company. Guy (Help!) 13:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as entirely PR and there's still nothing at all actually close to establishing independent substance; that's not surprising of course since it's only 6 years old. SwisterTwister talk 22:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I'm only seeing trivial mentions about the product. Does not meet GNG & CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable and agree that it reads like a press release for PR. Kierzek (talk) 12:49, 24 August 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Olly Howcroft (musician)

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

Article about a self-published musician. Fails WP:BASIC for lack of available reliable sources. - Mr X 11:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they fail WP:GNG:[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO in every point. -- Ben Ben ^(talk) 02:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable and promotional; I've also opened a sock investigation on the page creator. 331dot (talk) 10:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see no evidence of notability. Deb (talk) 16:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I PRODed the article for no coverage in RS, but removed. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 19:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ALL - per nomination. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No third party, independent evidence of lasting notability. Possibly in future, but. _Muffled ^Pocketed 04:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (with related pages as cited above) per nom. Quis separabit? 18:47, 23 August 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kuei Awsm

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

Appears to be made up self promotion with made up achievements - most 'references' are either to just a site front page, or to a article that does not mention the subject at all. The person does appear to be real so not a total hoax. Not counting his own website and his IMDB page (that also looks like self promotion) the only article I found mentioning him was that he posted someone else's video on his facebook page that went viral. KylieTastic (talk) 11:41, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable social media figure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete reeks of self promotion. Poor quality sources. A 15 year old... LibStar (talk) 09:54, 23 August 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Digabit

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

Minor company that won a very very minor award (so not quite an A7). All sources are, or are based on, press releases, nothing independent or substantial at all. Guy (Help!) 11:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 12:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 12:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 12:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 12:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. (If I referenced-checked that article, almost every ref would end up with a tag after it.) - David Gerard (talk) 14:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as entirely PR for a newly started company, nothing at all substantial. SwisterTwister talk 22:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- TOOSOON; the company is not yet notable. Coverage is PR / trivial and insufficient to meet GNG and CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aathi (mentalist)

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

No reliable third-party sources, WP:BLP issues. Likely not notable. The best we have is an interview, not third-party coverage, and some videos of the subject. That's not enough for an encyclopedia article about this person. Huon (talk) 11:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Are we heading for a TED talk singularity - where everybody in the world has given at least one? Famous _dog (c) 10:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean TEDx. There's a difference. DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 28 August 2016 (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. Only the tagged article will be deleted, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kristiansand Bus Vågsbygd Local Lines

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

Non-notable bus route. No evidence of in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. See also recent AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristiansand Bus Sogndalen Lines. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 11:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 11:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, bus-cruft. Geschichte (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Part of a long line of non-notable bus route articles in Kristiansand, two more exists in addition to this. Manxruler (talk) 05:44, 22 August 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Bartholomew

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

College player who probably did half a season in a pro team (according to unreliable sources). No non-trivial independent sourcing. Guy (Help!) 10:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 11:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 11:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCOLLATH. Based on NFL.com, he only played in the preseason, so fails WP:NGRIDIRON as well. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and delete the article for his brother Will Bartholomew as well for same reasons. Lizard (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable sportsman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:12, 25 August 2016 (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. MBisanz ^talk 21:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Toolstop

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

Still no actual substance for convincing independent notability, I still my confirm my PROD. SwisterTwister talk 03:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - created by COI account for promotional purposes. Lacks in-depth coverage in a multitude of reliable secondary sources. Most references are just brief mentions. Citobun (talk) 10:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Wait One of the citations is an independent article about Toolstop. The company does have a long history, and there could be more out there to be found with some solid searches. Metaphorical analysis (talk) 13:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Nicol, Lynda (2013-10-15). "The World's First Toolstop Trade Shop Is Now Open". Daily Record. Archived from the original on 2016-08-21. Retrieved 2016-08-21.
  The article notes:
  
  Over the past five years, Toolstop has become Scotland's largest distributor of professional hand and power tools including brands such as Bosch, Dewalt, Makita, Hitachi, Stanley, Bahco, Irwin, Monument, Draper, Sealey and Ridgid.
2. "Embrace the power of selling online". The Scotsman. 2009-07-27. Archived from the original on 2016-08-21. Retrieved 2016-08-21.
  The article notes:
  
  Having launched its first online offering, branded as Toolstop, just 18 months before, many of the firm's 20 staff were sceptical. But the company, which previously generated 90 per cent of its business through accounts with companies within a 25-mile radius of its Lanarkshire headquarters, saw the bad debt as a wake-up call to expand the business.
  ...
  Until that point, Toolstop's staff had been working as two separate entities – a handful on the internet business and the rest on the traditional accounts.
  ...
  TOOLSTOP is a subsidiary of Noel Kegg, which was established in 1965 to supply hand tools and ironmongery to local businesses.
  The company moved into its current premises – a 22,000sqft warehouse in Lanarkshire, in 1974.
  The sales website toolstop.co.uk was launched in May 2007, but the company only began to focus on online sales at the end of last year.
3. "Toolstop Plots Continued Online Expansion". Sunday Herald. 2010-01-24. Archived from the original on 2016-08-21. Retrieved 2016-08-21.
  The article notes:
  
  Toolstop, formerly Noel Kegg, a long-established Hamilton-based tool supply company based in a former working man's hostel, has become the poster child for the extraordinary potential of the e-commerce sector to transform the Scottish economy. Calum Kegg, who has transformed the business founded as a "wee shop in Bellshill" in 1965, took time out from fulfilling a groaning order-book, and the non-stop ringing of the cyber-till, to talk to the Sunday Herald, in the middle of a pre-Christmas rush when the firm was selling GBP30,.000 worth of industrial tools and DIY supplies a week. The growth rate that this represents is jaw-dropping, especially as the customers are located in over 30 different countries, and, the amount of Bosch power tools that the firm sells to Germany makes it the stuff of coals-to-Newcastle legend. Kegg's father was a successful supplier to mainly Lanarkshire tradesmen. At its pre-web peak, the business turned over a healthy GBP2 million, with a staff of around 10 people.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Toolstop to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 02:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The coverage shown shows shows the lack of significance. Based on their contents, these supposedly reliable newspapers can npot be trusted as RSs for notability , if they give coverage to businessws of this extremely minor nature. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- coverage offered at this AfD is either trivial or local, and insufficient to meet GNG and CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a promo piece overall and only a trivia story at best. Does not meet CORPDEPTH. Kierzek (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daryl Lokuku Ngambomo

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - does not meet WP:NMMA Peter Rehse (talk) 10:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NMMA RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 19:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable MMA fighter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable 71.190.34.72 (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable as an MMA fighter or judoka. Has no top tier MMA fights and success as a junior judo competitor fails WP:MANOTE and WP:NSPORT. Jakejr (talk) 01:00, 24 August 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

André Fialho

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

Non-notable MMA fighter does not meet WP:NMMA Peter Rehse (talk) 09:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable MMA fighter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete MMA fighter who fails WP:NMMA and lacks the coverage for WP:GNG. Jakejr (talk) 00:56, 24 August 2016 (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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yamaha Champions Riding School

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

Still none of this actually suggests needed substance for independent notability, I still confirm my PROD. SwisterTwister talk 03:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Note that this is a manifestation of the previous Freddie Spencer High Performance Riding School. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep – Passes WP:NSCHOOL and WP:CORPDEPTH. Independently notable per a review of available sources, which topic notability is based upon. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

"Yamaha Champions Riding School Teaches Motorcycling On The Track". Forbes. March 5, 2014.
"Motorcycle school: Check your ego at the door". Toronto Star. May 22, 2015.
"Year of the Goose, Part 5 - Track Education at Yamaha Champions Riding School". Car and Driver. February 19, 2016.
Miller Time. Cycle World. pp. 51-52 ....(and more) (Scanning errors here, have to scroll up to view the rest of the article, which is still partially obscured). (subscription required)
"Yamaha Champions Riding School - Extra Credit". Sport Rider. (A printed magazine with paid subscriptions, see here.)
Parsons, Grant (April 2004). "Professor Freddie". American Motorcyclist. pp. 41–44. Retrieved 11 August 2016. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Keep With the identification and addition of sources found by Northamerica1000, the notability standard is met. With the ease with which the sources were found, the question must be raised if the nominator met the standards required by WP:BEFORE to look for prospective sources to support the claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 04:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No I had searched, but even the listed sources above are either simply mentions focused as "so and so was at this school or this or that happened at that school", there's still not the convincing substance for actually improving this beyond this happenstance coverage. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – All of the sources I have provided provide significant coverage. None of them provide mentions at all. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:05, 20 August 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nagra caste

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

Lacks notability. All the clan articles in the category of 'Jat Clans of Punjab' face the same issue. Most of them are as if there are listed in a clans directory, WP:NOT. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 03:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cannot see obvious evidence of notability, but I don't know enough about the topic: User:Sitush, on the other hand, does. Vanamonde (talk) 10:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Brought here by the ping above. I've never been able to reliably source this article. - Sitush (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. As the article currently stands it lacks sources entirely. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:19, 25 August 2016 (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 does not seem to exist a subject-specific notability guideline for artworks, so people fell back to the normal WP:GNG and WP:N and there is no evidence that it is met here - being part of a specific collection is not part of the general notability guidelines. Consensus further indicates that the teacher of the artist having an article does not give the artwork notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait of Mrs. Stefka Gueorgieva Otmarova

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

One of the many Europeana-contest articles about non-notable subjects (among the many about notable subjects as well). No indepth sources about this work seem to exist. Prod removed because "Sources in local languages no doubt exist". No idea why this is supposed to be certain. Actually looking for such sources gives no additional results with further info.[13] Fram (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no allegation that this painting is notable, much less any evidence for it. Bearian (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no in-depth research and coverage for this particular work. Also in this case I expect to see the article about painter first and only then about specific work. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The work is sourced. The artist is sourced. We already have an article on the artist's teacher, Jaroslav Věšín. Pastel on paper is a fragile medium. This one survived from 1915. It appears that it is in the collection of Slavo-Byzantine Studies in Sofia, Bulgaria. This goes a long way in establishing the notability of the artwork. Bus stop (talk) 02:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think you really understand our concept of notability then. There are thousands upon thousands of pastels of 100 years or older still remaining. That the teacher of the artist has an article gives zero notability to this work of art. The work is sourced, yes, to a website with a few million (literally) objects dumped into it, and from the owner of the work. That's not significant sourcing from independent sources. Fram (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is a painting in the collection of Slavo-Byzantine Studies in Sofia, Bulgaria. That strongly suggests the painting is notable. That it is of 1915 and a pastel on paper suggests notability. That the artist is a student of the artist Jaroslav Věšín suggests notability. The owner could have self-serving motivations. That does not concern me. Bus stop (talk) 03:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see no substantive claim to notability nor in-depth, significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Citobun (talk) 10:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can see no evidence supporting a claim to notability. Being a part of a curated collection might just count, but that needs to be thoroughly substantiated, which it has not been. Vanamonde (talk) 10:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The work of art is in a museum-level collection. That constitutes considerable indication of notability for Wikipedia purposes. Institutions by their nature bestow a certain level of importance on all artworks in their collection. I read above that "There is no in-depth research and coverage for this particular work". This is of secondary importance. That sort of commentary is usually present for works of art on which we have articles, it is true. But notability for individual works of art should not depend on that. Simply being part of a prominent collection should satisfy our requirements in this area. Bus stop (talk) 03:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the Wikipedia policies on notability. You need to demonstrate significant, in-depth coverage of this painting in multiple reliable secondary sources. Citobun (talk) 08:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citobun—I'm not aware of notability guidelines for articles on works of art. Please quote excerpts from or link to guidelines for notability concerning works of art. Bus stop (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability. Citobun (talk) 05:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citobun—thank you for that, but as you can see from the page you linked to, we don't have notability guidelines specifically for works of art. We can try to discuss works of art in terms of general notability but we also have to be concerned with factors particular to works of art. My argument is that institutions that collect art lend their imprimatur to the objects in their collection. I would not argue that every object in every prestigious art collection warrants an article on Wikipedia. But there are factors that bolster the support for keeping this article. It is a pastel on paper from 1915. The artist is the first woman to graduate from the Art Academy in Bulgaria. The name of the artist's teacher is known, and we have an article to link to, on that teacher, whose name is Jaroslav Věšín. I cannot attest for the stature of the collection of Slavo-Byzantine Studies. But I am assuming that there is merit in the objects in their collection. Bus stop (talk) 13:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate all that, and I actually do not feel very strongly about deleting this article. But I voted delete on the basis that the article lacks references to significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, as required by Wikipedia policy. If this changes I will also change my vote to Keep. Citobun (talk) 14:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 18:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelical intelligentsia

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

Doesn't appear to me to be a notable topic. Google Scholar doesn't bring up much related to it and the top results of Bing and Google are mirrors the Wikipedia page and blog posts. The newspaper link above mainly gives press releases about a 2008 study that apparently used the term. Sizeofint (talk) 07:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be a neologism which has not caught on. Besides that the qualifications seem to be very subjective. It can also be looked at as the intersection of two things, so OR although not WP generated OR. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems to be a term used in and coined by a study and resulting 2008 report. No evidence for this neologism attaining notable usage beyond that report, and the report itself has no Wikipedia article. Nor is their any evidence that any of the persons cited in the article as being "members" ("members" of what?) are anything more than a list of names taken from the report, names that the report concluded could be included amongst its self-defined "Evangelical intelligentsia" (i.e., there is no third party confirmation). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. Graham (talk) 20:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Saint symbolism . (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 08:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saints in Art

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

another copy and paste creation without sources or value on its own. Info present in the articles about the saints themselves. The Banner talk 07:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even if this were a notable topic, the article as it stands is eminently delete-worthy: completely unsourced, evidently copied from a number of other articles. Vanamonde (talk) 10:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is certainly a notable topic, with at least two books having the exact same title as our article, one by Clara Erskine Clement and one by Rosa Giorgi and Stefano Zuffi. The problem is that our article says nothing about the general topic of saints in art but simply list saints who have been depicted in art. I would urge the article creator, who has been editing the article since it was nominated for deletion, to provide such general content rather than carry on listing more and more individual saints. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is a pointless list. It is just a subjective list of names of saints, with the briefest of mention of their attributes and without any explanation why they have these attributes. It might as well just be a list of saints or Saint symbolism. Every saint will have been depicted in some artwork somewhere sometime in history. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Saint symbolism. Thanks, Tiptoethrutheminefield, for finding the relevant article that I though must already exist but was too lazy to look for. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Saint symbolism. There is nothing in it's current form that justifies independant article. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Saint symbolism. -- This article contains the saints dates of death, which could usefully be added to the target. The symbols commonly depicted with each saint are certainly worth having, but the target achieves this much better. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:18, 24 August 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Insight (rapper)

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

I could not find any reliable sources and establish notability of the musician Ymblanter (talk) 06:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable American rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I also concur none of this amounts to any actual form of notability or substance. SwisterTwister talk 07:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no evidence of notability for this individual. Vanamonde (talk) 10:47, 20 August 2016 (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) — Music1201 ^talk 15:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Hislop

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sourced to a reliable secondary source. Assertion of notability is in the first paragraph. Hesperian 02:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is an assertion, yes, and he is mentioned in an obscure book. That could be said of many people - how does he meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 03:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and many people are notable. He meets WP:BIO and WP:GNG per the text of those pages. e.g. "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." There's nothing there that says "obscure" books don't count. And you're only guessing that he gets no more than a "mention" in there. Well you've guessed wrong. Hesperian 05:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:BIO. coverage merely confirms he existed. LibStar (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "Fails WP:BIO" how? Hesperian 01:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is nothing to do with an obscure book, or for that matter BIO, the person was a teacher of two very notable Western Australian historical characters - as verified by trove refs JarrahTree 10:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep addresses WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 12:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Being the first is likely to make him notable, though I would have liked to know more. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2016 (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 book is not notable since Kirkus and the Forbes and HuffPo blogs are considered not reliable. The author may be notable but the book cannot inherit the author's notability except in particular circumstances (as noted on WP:NBOOK). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Paperboy's Fable

AfDs for this article:

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

Repeatedly recreated as promotion (see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Editor2626744‎). Fails WP:NBOOK. Only reliable source is a Kirkus review, every other source found is "contributor" churnalism, listicles, or veiled PR. Grayfell (talk) 20:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The reliability of Kirkus has been brought into question quite frequently and one editor that I hold as probably one of the leading authorities on Wikipedia as far as book related sourcing goes, DGG, has repeatedly stated that it's an unreliable source. I'll see what I can find, but offhand I'm not finding much. I initially found this Forbes link, but upon closer scrutiny it has two issues - the first is that it's written by the author himself and the second is that it looks to be one of the various blogs that gets posted by Forbes and not a Forbes article itself. The former is enough to make it a primary source, although the latter is something that would disqualify it as well. More sourcing might be found via the WP:INDIA news search, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He's from Macon, Georgia, so I don't think WP:INDIA would be much help. According to this from 2012, about 80% of Forbes articles are from "contributors", and receive no editing at all. I suspect that's gotten worse, also. They claim to make the distinction clear, but the overuse of these articles on Wikipedia speaks for itself. Grayfell (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping that some of the India sources would cover him, since he is of Indian descent. They'll do that on occasion, although of course it's far less likely when someone isn't born in India. (Although I will admit that I didn't immediately know that the guy wasn't from India.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Kirkus has been worthless for notability for many years--they review on request, and expect payment "Kirkus promises you a review in 7–9 weeks for $425. You can purchase an expedited review for $575, and they will deliver it in 4–6 weeks") . Libraries no longer use it much, as can be shown from Worldcat, because only 32 librarieshold the book, which is absurdly low for the genre. The publisher is a secondary publisher for Simon and Schuster for books that don;;'t fit on their main list, but it is not a vanity publisher. An award for a book from Entrepreneur Magazine is meaningless for notability . If this gets on the NYT best seller list, then will be time for an article. WP:NOTYET. Writing article on books like this is promotionalism DGG ( talk ) 14:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, as kirkus has been reviewing books for many years, i don't believe all their reviews are without merit, (especially the ones that are less then flattering:)), anyway also found this review from The Mill Magazine - "How To Invest In Your Startup .. Check out A Paperboy's Fable: The 11 Principles of Success, by Deep Patel. It is a charming story that teaches many extremely complex business principles in a way that is engaging and fun."[14], but even if this is ok as a source there still needs to be more. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where among the many deleted article talk pages about this person it was, but I looked into Mill Magazine closer and came to the conclusion that it's not a reliable source. I'll rehash in depth it if needed, but briefly it's published by a Market Style Media, which is strictly an advertising and promotion company that pushes local marketing, not journalism. That article closes with "All in all, I would definitely encourage anybody..." but doesn't actually give a byline! Who is doing the "encouraging"? I suspect it's Patel himself, but regardless, that's one of many red flags that show it's not a good source at all. Grayfell (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The book has also been reviewed in several Huffington Post articles, all of which have an editorial review. One is written by a NYT bestseller.

The Huffington Post - "How a High School Student Wrote and Published a Book at Age 16."[15]

The Huffington Post - "What a Teenager Can Teach You About Success."[16]

The Huffington Post (French edition): [17] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Progalaxy (talk • contribs) 16:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We just had a lengthy, lengthy discussion at the SPI about how Forbes is unreliable, do you really think "Huffington Post's The Blog" is going to be any better? MeiMei Fox is a coauthor of a memoir by someone else. Her profile even says she's a ghostwriter, so emphasizing her NYT book is misleading. Grayfell (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HuffPo blogs aren't considered to be RS on Wikipedia for the most part, as they don't undergo any sort of editorial oversight by the HuffPo, at least none that would make it the equivalent of an article written by one of the journalists for the main site or a newspaper article written elsewhere. Now as far as the author's qualifications, sometimes this can work in the source's favor but it's not a guarantee that the source is reliable because a blog post is still considered to be a self-published source. You'd have to show where there's coverage to show that Fox's work specifically with the HuffPo is considered to be notable and authoritative - her other work being notable doesn't automatically make this reliable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The claim to notability of this book rests too much on a source shown not to be so reliable as we once thought it to be, and I cannot find enough coverage elsewhere. Vanamonde (talk) 11:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, Kirkus I knew about. Forbes is a real eye-opener for me. Anyway, this "business fable" is (rather unsurprisingly) non-notable, when the only bona fide independent RS are considered. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Looks like the author has received more coverage than his book did: IANS Live, India New England News, Indian Eagle, APSE, India West, News89.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. Blythwood (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- fails WP:NBOOK. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:54, 26 August 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge A. Ruiz

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

All the3rd party refs are about a program he is connected with, not about him -- and I do not even see any 3rd party RS that he is the person who initiated it,as claimed in the article DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Considering the number of 3rd party sources in the article, I would have guessed that sources about the subject would have been easy to find, but this is not the case. I cannot find evidence of substantive coverage in independent sources. Vanamonde (talk) 11:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing actually substantiating his own notability and substance. SwisterTwister talk 16:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a non notable corporate executive with a purely promotional article. Sources do not suggest independent notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Texas USA. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 21:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Magen Ellis

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

Ellis is only notable for being Miss Texas USA and this alone is not enough to justify having an article on her. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Texas USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Texas USA; not individually notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Missouri. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 21:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Hartman

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

Hartman has won three different beauty pageants, but none at a level significantly high enough to pass notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Missouri as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Missouri; not individually notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. hoax DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Carroll (jeweller)

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

This biography is a hoax, probably fabricated to create a history for a brand of iPhone covers. The biography was started by a single-purpose account, User:Jeweller m, on English and Russian Wikipedias,[18] using a URL from the Ukraine Google Books.[19] It was also expanded by a Ukraine IP, Special:Contributions/95.81.10.73. The sources don't support anything about a jeweller or goldsmith named Richard Carroll, and they don't mention the supposed Caiman's brand of jewellery in London. An exhaustive search found nothing at all about this guy or his brand. It's quite suspicious that a recently formed "luxury" brand of iPhone cover called Caimania can be found in English-language and Ukraine sources. Binksternet (talk) 05:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Graphium who twice declined the AFD three years ago. Also Rankersbo who asked for dates from Jeweller m. A week later, Dodger67 thought this biography was suitable for mainspace. Note that INeverCry and Ellin Beltz recently deleted images of Caimania iPhone brand (File:Iphone_5_caimania.JPG, File:Caimania-logotype.jpg) from Wikimedia Commons for copyright violation reasons, and Ellin Beltz also nominated the notional Richard Carroll image for deletion because of its patently false declaration of ownership.[20] Binksternet (talk) 05:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the Russian article ru:Кэрролл, Ричард has an additional paragraph with a story about how Carroll was saved by a caiman when his boat capsized in Colombia, and so called his shop "Caiman's Jewellery", and his descendants revived the brand as "Caimania" to sell expensive mobile-phone cases. There is such a brand, and the same story appears on the their website. That can't be regarded as a reliable source, and in view of the doubts about the image expressed at Commons::Commons:Deletion requests/File:Richard Carroll.jpg I am leaning delete as a hoax/marketing ploy unless some other confirmation can be found. Unfortunately, I don't have access to any of the books cited as sources. JohnCD (talk) 09:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. The creator's deleted uploads on Commons include File:Caimania-logotype.jpg, File:Caimania-logo2.jpg, and File:Iphone 5 caimania.JPG. INeverCry 19:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe this is a hoax, but even if it isn't, the fact that it is impossible to find any verification of any of the content in any reliable source means that he is not notable enough for an article. (In addition to other reasons for thinking it's a hoax, it is very doubtful indeed whether it would be so difficult to find information about him if he really had made jewellery for Queen Victoria and King Edward VII, as claimed in the article. Also, as discussed in the commons deletion page linked above, there are reasons for thinking that the photograph used in the article is a forgery.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When I found the photo and it was so obviously a fake, I searched for information about this jeweler, and found nothing about him and Queen Victoria and/or King Edward VII. The article doesn't even have birth and death dates for the subject, nor was I able to find if the subject ever existed with or without the Caiman or Colombia. I think the article is a fake, probably for marketing reasons. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This masterpiece of marketing skills shouldn't be perpetuated like the Henryk Batuta hoax. The article on ru.wiki is already deleted. Sealle (talk) 09:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I had hoped to get access to one of the books cited, but did not succeed. However, the improbability of the caiman story, the dodgy image, the probability that if the story of the royal connection were true there would be some independent confirmation, and the likelihood that there is a marketing ploy behind this convince me that WP would be better without it. JohnCD (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can see by searching the text file of the book English goldsmiths and their marks that there's nothing inside about Richard Carroll or caiman. Same with the book Traditional jewelry of India, using snippet search. Binksternet (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as by all means, nothing comes close to actual substance. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as potential hoax. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Nevada. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 21:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ellie Smith

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

Smith's only claim to notability is being Miss Nevada, and this alone is not enough to make someone notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss America 2015 as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss America or perhaps Miss Nevada. Montanabw^(talk) 04:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Nevada; not individually notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Virginia. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 21:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Wheeler

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

Wheeler is just plain not notable. If she had not been Miss Virginia USA, no one would have probably ever thought to create an article on her, but winning a state Miss USA title is not enough on its own. Her role as a local news anchor in a Roanoke, Virginia TV station is sourced to an article by the TV station about its general change in its news lineup, the article is not even mainly about Wheeler. The other thing about her, being goal for a college women's ice hockey team is not enough. College sports roles only rarely make someone notable, and there is no indication this is an exception to that rule. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Virginia as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Northamerica1000. Montanabw^(talk) 04:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Virginia; not individually notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:53, 25 August 2016 (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) — Music1201 ^talk 15:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carol F. McConkie

AfDs for this article:

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

A previous AfD last November was closed as no consensus. Articles about LDS officials (just like articles about anything else) need independent sources to pass GNG. That means sources not connected with the LDS Church from where she draws her notability. Some may claim there's an exception that automatically grants notability to all high-ranking church officials. There is not. p b p 04:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The claims in this nomination are just plain not true. There are three sources in the article that clearly pass GNG as reliable, 3rd party and indepedent by even the most stringent understnadings of the terms. The Exponant 2, one of the sources listed, is not at all afiliated with the LDS Church. It is based in Massachusetts and published by people with interest in LDS related topics, but with no actual connection with the LDS church in an formal, organizational standpoint. The New Jersey article listed in the article also has no afiliation with the LDS Church. Another source is the article is Peggy Fletcher Stark's Salt Lake Tribune article. I guess since Stark is a Mormon she is excluded as a potential author, even though any review of her work shows she has no desire to advance any interest of the LDS Church, and the paper she works for, the Salt Lake Tribune, which is in no way owned or operated by the LDS Church.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Put another way, we have articles on McConkie from both the Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret News. These are the two largest papers in Utah. If we had equally indepth articles from the two largest papers in Nevada on one individual, would anyone even nominate the article for deletion. To be fair, the article from the Tribune was not identified until just now, but I hope people in considering the deletion consider the Tribune article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deseret News is controlled by the LDS Church and therefore isn't independent. Having a large circulation doesn't make something independent. The Salt Lake Tribune article is probably independent, though. p b p 13:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The recent discussions on Octaviano Tenorio showed that most editors do not agree with your overly broad interpretation of non-independent sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. It was closed as "no consensus", not as keep. Besides, there have been other LDS officials deleted under the same rationale. Instead of bringing up an aberration of an AfD, maybe bring up actual guidelines or policy? p b p 06:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: This parallels the discussion about other LDS church officials. I question the significance of this role, but the two largest-circulation Utah newspapers are significant coverage and they are independent of the subject. I think this is reasonably well-settled. Montanabw^(talk) 04:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You are ignoring that fact that the editors of the Salt Lake Tribune thought this was a position of enough importance to provide indepth coverage of the holder. This is different than the discussions we have had on other such figures, in which we did not have such a case. The Women's Exponant 2, a magazine published out of the Boston area, covering her is also a difference from the coverage we have seen on some other LDS figures.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deseret News could be seen as a biased source, that doesn't make it non-independent of the subject. Obviously LDS subjects are going to be of interest. The fact that she is so often in the news (hit HighBeam, too, not just Google), shows me that's she's notable. There are enough sources to pass GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What is the issue some people have with LDS officials having an article here on Wikipedia? McConkie's status as a member of an auxiliary presidency that serves millions of girls worldwide makes her significant. The Deseret News discussion closed with no consensus decision. That tells me that there is some merit to the arguments in favor of classifying the Deseret News as a reliable source. What's next? Are we going to suggest that any article that uses material put out by the LDS Church should be deleted? I personally believe (and my experience in this matter bears out this belief) that those proposing such deletions are antagonistic towards the Church and its leaders. Malicious intent is never sufficient grounds to delete an article, and I have found very little evidence to convince me that any of these deletion nominations for LDS articles are out of genuine concern for Wikipedia's standards and well-being. If you are going to suggest that no topic regarding a Church of 16 million people is significant because there is not sufficient coverage about it in non-LDS sources, get ready for an uprising. I think we should stop these silly, maliciously motivated nominations and get back to working together to get these articles up to the proper standard. I can guarantee that in none of these deletion nominations was sufficient time provided for proper discussion and edits to bring the articles into uniformity. Some have even been nominated for deletion within a short time after their creation. This madness must stop! --Jgstokes (talk) 08:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the Mormon church is large and notable doesn't mean anybody associated with it is also notable. You're basically saying in your deletion rationale that WP:RS and WP:GNG should be ignored for any article on an LDS topic, and it's prejudiced if they aren't. That's ridiculous. And since there's no consensus that Deseret News is independent, it's OK to test the community's view on its independence with AfDs. And you seem to think I'm nominating every topic associated with Mormonism for deletion. That's inaccurate. I only nominate the ones that have only Mormon sources. If a bandleader is only sourced by his band's website, his article gets deleted. If an executive is only sourced by his company's website, his article gets deleted. Why should church leaders be any different? p b p 16:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – there is an article in the Salt Lake Tribune which appears to be independent and dozens in the Deseret News, which many consider sufficiently independent of the likes of McConkie to attest reliably to her position and appearances at meetings etc. And other mentions in other publications. Oculi (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Idaho. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 21:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sierra Sandison

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

This is an article on some woman who got passing media attention because she wore an insulin pump on her bikini at some competition where women are treated like meat and judged by how well they look in swimsuits. Nothing about her comes even marginally close to notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With respect to the insulin pump, WP:BLP1E applies, and I would argue to delete. I am not aware of guidelines/consensus with respect to beauty pageants, however, and I cannot judge whether being "Miss Idaho 2014" is enough to confer notability. My gut feeling is "no." Vanamonde (talk) 11:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The current answer to the miss Idaho question is no. However there are some people who assume it is yes, even though there has never been any Wikipedia decision in favor of this view. There is also a general discussion here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beauty_Pageants#RFC_on_creation_of_consensus_standard considering if there should be an attempt to create a guideline, although it looks unlikely to resolve anything. Although it might eventually, after several months, if it gets well publicized.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Idaho as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Idaho -- best not to leave a redlink as clickbait. I'd add a note about the insulin pump there. Montanabw^(talk) 04:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Idaho; not individually notable and insulin pump is BIO1E coverage and insufficient to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Texas USA. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 21:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Daniels

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

Another non-notable state pageant winner. We have articles on hundreds of these people, and they keep in place because it is so much harder to remove articles from Wikipedia than it is to create them. Daniels is just plain non-notable and the sooner we delete this article, the quicker we will reach a point where Wikipedia resources are used in a wise manner. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Texas USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Per Northamerica1000. Would love to delete this one, but redlinks are clickbait. Montanabw^(talk) 04:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Texas USA; not individually notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G7 Ronhjones ^(Talk) 14:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Muaaz Bin Zaka

AfDs for this article:

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

This page is fake and personality is not yet a public figure nor celebrity Muhammad Muaaz Bin Zaka (talk) 03:11, 20 August 2016 (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/2016 August 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily delete. User start page with only AfD tag. WP:G7 speedy tag was requested there. NgYShung ^huh? 03:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blank page. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 06:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete would be appropriate here, under G7 or indeed under A3. Vanamonde (talk) 11:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A bit weak but it's already been relisted twice. Recreation might be OK if evidence of notability is provided. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Biology, UP Diliman

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

It seems that a set of singe-purpose accounts arose for the creation of a series of articles about each of the various institutes, departments, and extension programs that exist at this university. The university is notable; but these subunits are not and do not seem to warrant standalone articles. This one, like several of the others, appears to be largely promotional and is poorly sourced at best. KDS4444 (talk) 06:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 01:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with the rationale by the nominator. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 06:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A bit weak but it's already been relisted twice. Recreation might be OK if evidence of notability is provided. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

University of the Philippines Institute of Environmental Science and Meteorology

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

University, notable; this institute, like a number of similar subunits of the university for which Wikipedia articles have been created under accounts with either a single purpose or extremely few edits, not so much. KDS4444 (talk) 06:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 01:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with the rationale by the nominator. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 06:14, 20 August 2016 (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. Lack of discussion. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 15:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

University of the Philippines, College of Social Sciences and Philosophy

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

The university is notable, but this school is not. References given lack independence. Borderline promotional. KDS4444 (talk) 06:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 01:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A bit weak but it's already been relisted twice. Recreation might be OK if evidence of notability is provided. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

University of the Philippines College of Social Work and Community Development

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

Non-notable subunit of the university. Reference lacks independence. Promotional as well. Created by an SPA with an edit history of 4 edits.KDS4444 (talk) 06:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 01:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with the rationale by the nominator. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 06:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. This one is a borderline No Consensus but the arguments to keep do nothing to rebut the principal problem with the article: it has no apparent criteria for including content (who decides what qualifies as a "main road"?) and cites no references that would satisfy WP:GEOROAD. A Train^talk 15:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of main streets of New Zealand cities

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

Massive list of prominent streets in various New Zealand cities and towns. Of the lists entries approximately 10% have articles associated but much of the rest are arbitrary roads or streets of lesser significance. There is a vague guide to inclusion however the whole article is unsourced. Article appears to be more of a travel guide WP:NOTTRAVEL. This list would be better suited to be replaced with a category. Ajf773 (talk) 10:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transport-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a list with no encyclopedic value. Perhaps there could be a lot said about some of these streets, but that would be better said in the city's article, with sources. "Pepper" @ 01:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think the current category hierarchy is fine - no need to add a Category:Main Streets in New Zealand subcat to Category:Streets in New Zealand. "Pepper" @ 01:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, the current category hierarchy is fine. Ajf773 (talk) 01:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Grutness: I'd like to hear your thoughts, as the 2005 creator of this article, whether you think it can be turned into something that is more in line with an encyclopaedic entry. Schwede 66 09:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's certainly got out of hand from how I'd originally envisioned it, and is more a Wikitravel thin than a WP article. May be better to delete for now with no prejudice against creation of a new more encyclopaedic page later. Grutness...wha? 06:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've pruned the content of the article relating to the cities I'm most familiar with down to the single main street, as an example of what the article could be. But seeing that - would it actually be more appropriate to convert the article to a template to show at the bottom of articles such as Colombo Street? Daveosaurus (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See wp:CLT for how categories, lists, navigation templates are complementary. Pretty much wherever there is one, the others are good to have, too. Here there is Category:Roads in New Zealand. The advantage of a list is that it can include redlinks suggesting where articles are needed, and blacklink items too, and it can contain sources and photos and text descriptions. The list is not great...it would be better if someone would make a table out of it and add descriptive/comparative information, but the topic is rock solid valid. Note that one combined list is nicer than a separate list-article about roads in each separate city. This allows for comparisons across cities, and they're all pretty much the same kind of thing. --do ncr am 02:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the most exciting work in Wikipedia, but see List of streets in Baltimore, matching Category:Streets in Baltimore. It has extensive notes on some of the streets that I am sure is interesting to some. Note it includes blacklink items: the editors judge that the important street articles have been created; it is not calling for articles to be created. I am not so much a fan of navigation templates. The only way they can list items without articles is by including them as redlinks, which gives the wrong signals where articles are not really needed. Causing AFDs down the road. :) --do ncr am 03:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue, however, that the scope of this article is too broad. I'll throw in the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS note that the similar scope of "Streets in [country]" is a whole wikiproject for some larger countries, and virtually all existing "List of streets in [location]" articles are on the city scale. The "main street" qualifier is also tough, as the article mentions. It's susceptible to individual perception, like User:Daveosaurus removing tens of streets (including some with articles), and seems like an unnecessary qualifier to me. "Pepper" @ 04:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just note here that not all notable streets are the main street of a town, and not all main streets may be notable themselves - e.g. probably the most notable street in Dunedin is a long suburban cul-de-sac. If you don't agree with the way the article was pruned, just fix it. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have a category already for roads in New Zealand and only 10% of the streets in the list have their own article. If this page is kept, it should be trimmed right down and restarted, leaving in only the notable ones - or with significant coverage from secondary sources. The list in its current form is more of a travel guide than an encyclopedic entry. Ajf773 (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 01:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; collection of indiscriminate information about a non-notable topic; no substantial coverage in reliable sources about the topic of main streets of New Zealand cities is apparent. Sandstein 06:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all from this would conclude an actually convincing article with its own need, since it's only a list of those streets. SwisterTwister talk 04:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. List articles have as one of their purposes dealing with topics too minor to require a main article. There is no requirement at all that collectively or separately the topic be suitable for a narrative article. Categories and lists are complementary--the main virtue of categories is that they populate automatically; the main deficiency is that they can provide no contest at all, while a list can indicate, for example, the city. DGG ( talk ) 23:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I asked a question a few weeks back but then didn't get back to this to state that I lean towards deletion of this list article. I just find it too difficult to define inclusion criteria; what should be in, and what should not be? Articles that exist can be made accessible through categories and navboxes; the latter can deal with redlinks indicating notable topics. Navboxes would presumably cover smaller areas (down to city level if we want) rather than the whole country. This, to me, appears far more suitable to deal with scope queries. Schwede 66 00:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The topic of the list appears too broad. Streets are, in a majority of jurisdictions, under the purview of local governments; thus, while a list of major streets in a city-equivalent may be an appropriate topic, such a list for those presented at the national level seems indiscriminate. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Longhaired Whippet

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability: significant RS coverage cannot be found. What's there suggests that it may not be yet a recognised breed (The Whippet); article tagged notability since 2008. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Silken Windhound or delete. Like the nominator, I can only find one source which seems to say they are the same new breed as the Silken Windhound, and either way there is not seemingly enough reliable sources to provide independent verification of facts. Steven Walling • talk 07:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet notability guide. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 01:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No RS found. Fails WP:GNG. Lizzymartin (talk) 04:22, 26 August 2016 (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 23:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

B. S. Bhalla

AfDs for this article:

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

Similar deletion of another non-notable administrator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ashish_Kundra

Officer is just mid level management. Delete. Being the administrator of a Union Territory does not make someone notable by just holding the post. For non Indian editors there is a difference between Administrator and Lt Governor &Governor. The former being a bureaucratic post appointed by the Ministry of Home Affairs and the latter being a political post appointed by the President on advice by the Prime Minister and his cabinet. Uncletomwood (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable bureaucrat. No claim of notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 01:24, 20 August 2016 (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Mixtape

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

While Derulo is obviously notable, and so is the single mentioned here (Watcha Say), I couldn't find coverage regarding this specific mixtape. Searching for "Jason Derulo mixtape" results in hits for other mixtapes by the same artist and apparently not about this one. Also, the title is pretty hammery (yes I know Hammer applies to future releases and not past ones, but still). It's possible that the content here could be merged to another article, but even if that were the case, I doubt that the title would be a viable redirect considering how generic it is. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 00:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The first two paragraphs are taken straight from Jason Derulo (album). The third paragraph is original. I can't find any mentions of this mixtape other than pirate releases which might just mean a pirate named it "Untitled Mixtape" rather than anyone from Derulo's camp. Because of that it's not even worth redirecting. Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yeah, no - David Gerard (talk) 01:06, 25 August 2016 (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. Per WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

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

fails WP:ORG. diplomatic missions are not inherently notable . All the sources prove is that the office exists rather than in depth third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 13:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of coverage to be found and this seems to be the official ambassador of Taiwan since Taiwan famously has to operate a bit differently in international matters. Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, it doesn't seem to operate in just Saudi Arabia as mentioned in the article but on a larger scale. Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources merely confirm existence , can you give examples of in depth coverage. LibStar (talk) 07:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lengthy interview with an "ambassador," a story on a meeting between a prince and the ambassador and three stories on events run by the office which also cover the office. If you were to cover a person, what kind of coverage would constitute as "in-depth coverage?" Because I don't know what's more in-depth than an interview. Regardless of those there are countless of official pages "confirming the existence" which could be used as sources all the same even without these news articles. Mr. Magoo (talk) 10:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:06, 20 August 2016 (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.

[1] ttp://www.lonelyplanet.com/india/himachal-pradesh/eastern-himachal-pradesh/activities/other/naldehra-golf-course

[1]