Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 10 August	12 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Channon Rose

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

Retired porn performer and vlogger who fails the GNG and PORNBIO and lacks decent sources to meet N Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Previously deleted as Randi Wright and still not notable. From my previous AfD vote: fails PORNBIO without significant awards. The writeup in a local paper is not enough for GNG. All other references are unreliable. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:PORNBIO & WP:GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 13:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above From the article "They are to be married on August 16, 2015 in Walnut Grove, California." … best wishes, but you still can't have the article. Pincrete (talk) 14:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:PORNBIO & WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this promotional autobiography with negligible independent reliable sourcing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ammad Azhar

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

Promotional, non-notable, no reliable sources can be found. - The ChampionMan 1234 22:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See also this note by an apparent paid editor. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by all means as my searches found absolutely nothing. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable or sourced. Fuzchia (talk) 04:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only source I could find was the website already referenced on his article. Clearly not notable. Elspamo4 (talk) 20:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Christopher Gordy

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

Along with lack of notability, this article has had many issues for a long time, one of which it is not sourced appropriately. The subject's own website is source 1 & 2, and the IMDB is sources 4,6, and 7. That leaves 3 sources for the entire rest of the article, two of which are dubious. This also is basically a resume. Cagepanes (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:N not shown. If kept it should be moved to Milan Christopher.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Clearly fails general notability. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches found nothing at all to suggest there's better coverage. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Achiever Book of Records

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

Contested proposed deletion: Does not establish notability of subject and fails to give independent third party sources that document the topic SFB 21:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft & userfy if needed as there's nothing to suggest third-party sources. SwisterTwister talk 04:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - local competitor of the Guinness Book, apparently two years old, but the web has not taken notice yet Kraxler (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Institute for Anarchist Studies. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perspectives on Anarchist Theory

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

Seemingly NN journal - no independent coverage. There are articles that cite articles in this pub, but no independent coverage found. Citations don't pass the in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP The Dissident Aggressor 21:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I merged the content to Institute for Anarchist Studies so, at the very least, the article should redirect there to preserve attribution. – czar 00:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. There's no true reason for this to have its own article, especially when the organization's article is fairly small. It's actually quite common on here for an organization's article to also contain information (in a subsection) about their journal/publication/etc, so there won't be anything really lost by doing this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Institute for Anarchist Studies, where this material is sufficiently covered. Carrite (talk) 02:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biomorphic_robotics

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

very poor writing, no sources, refimprove tag 7 years old Pcwendland (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only significant references I could find was in the context of old ads for an Xmas toy and the title of a single book. This appears to be a term that did not 'catch on'.Pincrete (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it can be improved as though I'm not at all familiar with this, my searches found no good sources aside from this (nothing much outstanding as it is). SwisterTwister talk 04:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meus Momentos (band)

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

Meus Momentos (band) was recently created with Washington Benicio and Category:Meus Momentos. Nominating all three as failing notability. Tóraí (talk) 21:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: AfD notice placed on Washington Benicio. Category:Meus Momentos should be taken to WP:CfD or deleted under WP:C1 after it has been emptied. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, Google searches did not return anything relevant. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 03:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nomination. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 21:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all for now as my searches found nothing better aside from this (a few music encyclopedias). SwisterTwister talk 04:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak under criterion G7. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 02:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dance Away Dementia

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

Declined speedy because there's not category this fits under. It appears the author wanted to write content to do with the positive effects of dancing for Alzheimer patients. What should we do with this content/article? Tóraí (talk) 20:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tagged this as a speedy. It stretches a genuine research finding to WP:OR and what amounts to promotion for a very local senior fitness scheme. It's also not clear that the article title is anything other than a slogan since it's never referred to in the text Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article can easily be expanded. The title may need to be broadened, but a quick search on google finds [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] multiple themes on this Wiki article. I see zero reason to throw this article away at this time since there is obvious context out there which can be developed.MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 21:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Johnson (YouTuber)

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

All references are primary sources. No indication of coverage in reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. I've done a search online for such coverage and have come up empty. Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 20:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Can't see any notability sources, most of the links are primarily targetting social media. I cannot verify the reliability of the said article based on the reference fielded.--Prince Sulaiman ^{Talk to me} 20:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. Gparyani (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable OluwaCurtis The King : talk to me 21:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Added other sources, including Gigaom, ABC World News Now, Zagat/Google, iMore, Bleeding Cool, Premiere Radio Networks, etc User:Sircheeto talk to me 1:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC) User:Sircheeto is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT.

Question: Do you have sources that talk about him? Many sources (ABC included) seem to be links to videos/podcasts with him, but I'm not seeing sources that talk about him in any kind of depth, that are also unrelated. That's really what will be needed here. Crow^Caw 16:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Can't see any reliable sources, most of the links are targetting social media, some cyclic, fails GNG.Pincrete (talk) 16:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as there's nothing much convincing yet. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bazj (talk) 09:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

National Curriculum (England, Wales and Northern Ireland)

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

This articles tries to combine three very different elements into one. Each is better served by the separate articles that now exist, i.e. National Curriculum for England, National Curriculum for Wales and National Curriculum for Northern Ireland. MichaelT1979 (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The article purports to be about three countries. However the content relates only to what the Secretary of State for Education has done. Since education is devolved matter, the content would appear to duplicate National Curriculum for England, but since the title is misleading, it should not be redirected. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Devolution came several years after the National Curriculum was introduced. References to "National Curriculum" before devolution, such as in Kenneth Baker#Education Secretary, correctly link to this article. The alternatives would be to merge it to Education Reform Act 1988 (probably too much to merge) or to redirect it to National Curriculum for England as the regions of England are the only regions of the UK still under direct rule. Peter James (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The curriculum is just very different in each country, nothing is added in this article. Szzuk (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They may be now but this is (or should be) about the curriculum that was introduced by the Education Reform Act 1988. Several articles link to it such as the one I had mentioned above. Peter James (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- My understanding is that the national curriculum was never national because it didn't include Scotland and with devolution in the late 90s - Wales, NI and England all diverged. So this article describes the history of education from late 80s to late 90s. The article can't describe just this time period (and the Education Reform Act 1988) because the article name dictates otherwise and editors will add content according to the article name - leaving the article the same mess. The only credible option is a rename but that begs the question what for? A history section in the other articles is sufficient. Szzuk (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Even before devolution education in Wales and Northern Ireland were dealt with by those offices. Sometimes the same measure was promulgated by all the relevant Secretaries of State together. If kept, the article should be amended to limit it to the period before Welsh and NI devolution, with links to the separate subsequent curricula. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Peter - Remove everything after the devolution and the article would make far more sense & would serve a better purpose than it does now.. –Davey2010^Talk 20:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Peterkingiron - Remove everything after devolution and brief explanation and the article would make far more sense & would serve a better purpose than it does now, similarly clip the early parts of England/Wales/NI such that the context of central/devolved curricula and national variations before devolution become clearer. Deletion might cause difficult 'link' problems.Pincrete (talk) 17:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article describes a notable historical phenomenon. It should be updated to reflect devolution and the wording should make its historical character immediately apparent. It should link to the National Curriculum for England, the National Curriculum for Wales, the Northern Ireland Curriculum, and the Scottish Curriculum for Excellence. --Boson (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to Visakhapatnam – New Delhi AP Express. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Visakhapatnam New Delhi Express

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

Completely blanked article, No references or contents. Prince Sulaiman ^{Talk to me} 19:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected : The user added it again which was duplicate of existing one. Hence, redirected.--Vin09 (talk) 06:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Afghanistan helicopter crash

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

Miltary aircraft accidents are rarely notable unless other factors come into considerations, like the death of someone wiki notable, I cant see any factors here that make this accident of note for a stand-alone article, mention at List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2010–present) is all that is required. MilborneOne (talk) 19:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Tragic but WP:NOTNEWS also applies....William 19:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and the well-established consensus. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOTNEWS, routine military incident.TheLongTone (talk) 11:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A crash killing seventeen people isn't routine even in military terms. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp. 217.30.195.63 (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the number of deaths has no bearing on whether the article should be kept. Is there significant in-depth coverage? No there isn't; the requirements of the general notability guidelines have not been met. YSSYguy (talk) 08:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per above, can be mentioned in 2015 in aviation or 2015 in Afghanistan instead. Brandmeister^talk 08:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable unless there was a notable person among the dead, casualties on the ground, or civilian passengers, doesn't matter how many dead--Petebutt (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Definitely not notable. Haven't even heard of this before. Versus001 (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – A helicopter crash killing 17 people – whether civilian or military – is automatically notable because of the unusually high death toll. Any military crash with a death toll that high is far from routine. Such a crash probably would not be nominated for deletion if it occurred in the United States, Canada, or Europe, which should be a factor in considering the "notability" of the accident. Mdnavman (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC) mdnavman[reply]
Delete This article fails WP:GNG by a mile.--Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite)^{i've made a huge mess} 00:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Not enough content, if more is added it would be keepable SOXROX (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is hard to call a crash killing 17 "routine," but it does seem that consensus is that military crashes of this magnitude are generally not regarded as sufficiently noteworthy to merit stand-alone encyclopedic coverage. This decision would have been harder if this piece was more than a stub. Carrite (talk) 02:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, no lasting impact shown Kraxler (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

William X. Wang

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

Pure vanity bio - if the guy is notable, this needs to be blown up and started again. ukexpat (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There may be a rationale for notability, but this began as an unsourced vanity autobiography in 2010, and has accreted resume-cruft substantially since then. There has never been a good version. 73.159.24.89 (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is sad that this glorified CV has remained undetected for 5+ years, there does not appear to be anything in this person's history to suggest he meets WP:N. Tarc (talk) 13:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkwood829 (talk) 15:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)I have read over several messages from your talk. I get several issues would like to discuss with you. As Mr.Wang’s very close and long-time friend, only me who has opportunities of follow his experience in both US and China for decades, and also only me who is able to understand the languages that introduced him in both English and Chinese, this is the reason, I has initialized the article and been kept it updated. I think it would be more beneficial to keep the article alive and to continue improve it for better. I feel there has a few reasons: At first, Wang’s story have been continually appeared in a number of TV program, book, magazine; journal; records in Chinese since 1980s of last century. Those information presented in the article all can be verified from public resources. Secondly, because his unique life story from a country boy to be a scholar is considered as a miniature and epitome of a Chinese history period that communist has ruled for more than last 60 years. Thirdly, Wang’s experience from a bio-scientist to bio-related entrepreneur, is the products of the times, that reflects and somehow represents the trend of the times and the tendency of 21st century’s industry development; thirdly Wang spent a half time of his life in china and another half in America, he is a kind of symbolic figure for millions of American Chinese who contributed to both country and he is a good example of the United States as a national,culture and idea melting pot for people who coming from all over the world. Fourthly, since the article lunched in 2010, it has been 6 years,and during this period, I can see from the view history where has more 20 editors whom you might be included, had appreciable time to correct it, improve it and make it better and better. A deletion is a simple and quick action, but it would waste all those valuable efforts and precious time. At last, I found that your last modification has removed the most controversial paragraphs which I had added a few days ago, and so the article already returned to the before that the version has existed 6 years. In future, if I intend to add more details, I should very carefully to follow the rules and policies of Wikipedia and write it neutrally and professionally. Sincerely, Kirkwood829.Kirkwood829 (talk) 15:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Befuddled This fellow may or may not be notable. But the article is so horribly badly written that it's impossible to make an informed evaluation. The suggestion to blow the article up and start all over again is spot on. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete whether he is notable or not is impossible to tell from such a wall of text. Without proper sourcing it’s impossible to fix, best to start over from sources.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the information of this BLP does not meet WP:V. The citation needed tags I added a few days ago to the article were replaced mainly by articles that failed to source most of the information in the paragraphs. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wow. Simply wow, that's all I can say. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOWCLOSE (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oath Keepers

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

1) This organization is not notable, 2) Liberal Blogs are not reliable sources. 3) SPLC is not a reliable source, they call all conservative organizations hate groups. This article fails to meet even the most basic of Wikipedia's standards. It is so biased, poorly written and poorly sourced, that it is not salvageable and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BC2D:A090:3547:9104:7718:66D3 (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the nom for the IP. ansh 666 18:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Washington Post is a reliable source. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/11/who-are-the-oath-keepers-and-why-has-the-armed-group-returned-to-ferguson/ . I also note that the SPLC does not call this group a hate group and the word hate is not in the article as it now stands. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 19:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Plenty of RS coverage, including the sources already in the article (most of which do not appear to be "liberal blogs") and the following additional sources: [7] [8] [9] [10] Everymorning (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Several years of RS reports. There is biased content, which should be cleaned up, but that is not relevant here. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This article needs a LOT of help in the neutrality department but as Rwxrwxrwx said, that's irrelevant. The organization is clearly notable with even the most hasty Google search. --Non-Dropframe _talk 20:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --Non-Dropframe _talk 20:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, 2a/3. While it's not a flawless article, there's really no question about the existence of enduring coverage in reliable sources. With the subject of this article also being associated with current news events, it is difficult to assume good faith regarding this nomination. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep for the same reasons as Squeamish Ossifrage. BSVulturis (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep as per previous comments re: keep Mr Pyles (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Speedy keep per previous comments. If you don't like how the group is being portrayed, work on the article. 5minutes (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Speedy keep per previous comments. This is all over the news right now. This has nothing to do with whether the article discusses good people or bad people. If you don't like the article, I suggest you work to fix it. Having a Wikipedia article on an item of general public interest is in everybody's interest - except the deletionists. --Achim Hering (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The sources provide abundant evidence of sufficient notability. All other issues can be corrected by editing. Robofish (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per previous comments.Autarch (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7. Randykitty (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saleehou

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

Non notable and unsourced/poorly sourced Variation 25.2 (talk) 17:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Elee Kay

The result was CSD A7. Alexf^(talk) 17:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unsourced and non notable. No significant works Variation 25.2 (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clear case of NN autobiography. Speedy-deleted as non-notable. -- Alexf^(talk) 17:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Black Mountain Press

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

The first source in this article is a directory entry. The second is the company's own site. The balance is a list of books, each cited to a review or sales page, with the name of the publisher - yet each is presented as a "reference" in the article. There is no substantial coverage of the subject itself. Its website is... amateurish. Yes, there is Comic Sans. The catalogue is small, the authors undistinguished, and that's to be expected since they don't seem to want anyone who has an agent. Guy (Help!) 16:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First, I want to say that it would have been easier to review this if nom hadn't removed all but one sentence from the page. It is true that the remainder was un-sourced, but the content there would have given reviewers some clues as to where to look for additional info. I recommend looking at the August 1 version. Finally, though, I find no sources about this company. I looked in the local newspaper, Asheville Citizen Times, and didn't find anything. (Their interface is a bit hard to navigate using search, however.) LaMona (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated it precisely because after I had checked the sources and removed the poorly-sourced material, there was basically nothing left. Guy (Help!) 07:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I don't mean to be accusatory, and I can understand how that happened. I apologize if it came out sounding harsh, but other reviewers might get more out of the earlier version of the page, which has more content. LaMona (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not seeing any evidence of notability ukexpat (talk) 13:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP. Miniapolis 00:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of evidence that sufficient reliable sources exist to create a neutrally worded article about the subject without resorting to original research. Adding to the confusion, the publisher in Ashville, NC is not the only business to call itself Black Mountain Press. There was a publisher based in Cave Creek, Arizona that was in operation no later than 1975 and still in business under the same name in 1996. A third Black Mountain Press appears to be based in Aberystwyth, Wales.[11] As normal searches for information fails to turn up anything substantial for any of these three publishers, there is no reason to belive any of them sastisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. --Allen3 ^talk 12:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, redirected by nom. (non-admin close) shoy (reactions) 13:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cylinder boot

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

Very small topic, already covered in Diving cylinder#Cylinder boot. Redirect. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Redirection is done by ordinary editing, not deletion. See the Complete Diving Manual for evidence of notability. Andrew D. (talk) 06:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will redirect. No problem. Thanks for the ref. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Asheville, North Carolina#Film and television. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Rivers Multimedia Film Festival

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

Article apparently created to inflate the importance of crank films by Gary Null. The purported sources are directories and namechecks, there is no objective evidence of the significance of this subject. Guy (Help!) 16:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Untrue Guy/User Talk:JzG. Article was created as it sparked my interest in my building of an article about an award winning Gary Null film. Not for the reason you incorrectly have stated here. As a multi-media festival it intrigued me. If you look at some of my edits, article creations you'd see that I have connected articles to others with links and relationships. I do admit that I like doing that. If would take the time to look / admit, you'd acknowledge that the festival has been going for 22 years. Look (again?). The festival also gave 3rd place award to Journeyman that starred Matthew Montgomery and doubtless others. JzG/Guy, I would like to think that you're addressing this issue objectively but looking at your comments, relating to Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs where you say "non-notable crank film" and of course here where you say Article apparently created to inflate the importance of crank films by Gary Null.. Sometimes having a break, taking a breath and re-evaluating something without prejudice can make it a whole lot easier. Anyway something to have a think about. Thanks Mr Bill Truth (talk) 05:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep ~ It is a departure from the normal type of festivals. It is a multi-media film festival. It has also been going for 22 years. It has also exhibited films from Europe including one from director Martin Rath [12]. Journeyman, which starred Matthew Montgomery got Third Place Feature at the festival. I'd say that news articles from Noth Carolina would give a good idea of what it's significance in the North Carolina state is. I say that with independent film festivals, we need to look more objectively. Mr Bill Truth (talk) 05:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC) Editor now indef-blocked for fringe advocacy[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Mr Bill Truth (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Jytdog (talk) 04:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a departure in the sense that there is no significant independent coverage, and it promotes crank films like the ones whose articles you write, supporting them with references to this "festival". Guy (Help!) 07:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, not a "departure", as there are hundreds of similar multi-media festivals in the U.S. and elsewhere world-wide. What matters is coverage and this does have just enough despite its author. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 17:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 17:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 17:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable and probably only created in an attempt to bolster the notability of Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs. ukexpat (talk) 13:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I'm generally pretty inclusive when it comes to events like film festivals, but WP:ORG still applies and it's seems clear to me that this is part of an extensive effort by the creator to promote fringe theorist Gary Null. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think to check under alternate festival names, as I should have. I don't ascribe to the essay WP:LOCALINT, so my !vote is at the very least neutral, based on what Michael has turned up. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per Shawn above. Doesn't meet WP:ORG; sources are directory listings or blogs, which is a bit surprising for an event reportedly in existence for 20 years. Miniapolis 01:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect as indicated below would work for me, given the festival's reported age. Miniapolis 12:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep for in looking at the festival's alternate title, I find it spoken of in multiple WP:NEWSBLOGS. IE: Asheville Citizen-Times et al, and just enough others to show it making it into the enduring record so as to meet WP:ORG. It is a pity that the article has a taint due to its author, but that does not dismiss minor notability per coverage just meeting WP:GNG... and sadly, had it been written by someone else we might not be at AFD at all. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ORG Jytdog (talk) 04:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Jytdog, but WP:ORG is met though WP:CORPDEPTH [13][14][15] and in paying attention to the instructions toward regional notability at WP:AUD. Yes, the article has issues, but guidelines tells us an organization is fine in speaking about itself if supported by a few reliable sources. Is it as notable as the Sundance Film Festival? No. But is it just notable enough? Yes. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Michael Q those three links are a local (not regional) news story, and a link to google search and a link to google news; doesn't meet AUD. Jytdog (talk) 10:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that some may chose to ignore the other regional news sources offered in my sharing a link, or ignore the books which show this as making it into the enduring record. Certainly a closing admin will note that and the fact that many of the deletes seem to be because of the author, and not the sourcability of the topic found with a refined search parameter. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

nice rhetoric. local is local, and passing mentions have never been relevant to NOTABILITY and passing mentions are what your 2nd two links are full of. You've got one source, in a local newspaper. Jytdog (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons already explained above. Non-notable, even in a regional context. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 10:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A closing admin may think authors concerns ntwithstanding, WP:AUD is satisfied, even if you or others personally do not, for AFD is not a count of heads, but a consideration of guideline and policy supported arguments. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia,but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign ccauses great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia . DGG ( talk ) 21:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC

I couldn't agree more with DGG's rationale above. Miniapolis 23:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a short sourced mention in Asheville, North Carolina#Local culture where we have enough sourcing to merit a sensible neutral mention even if seen as lacking enough for a separate article. I have Struck my comments above. DGG? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...and have added a sourced sentence there. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Asheville, North Carolina#Local culture. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the redirect suggested by MQS is a reasonable solution DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DGG, as I feel this simple solution serves the project and its readers without doing anything to support the promotional intents of the blocked author. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Wikicology and MichaelQSchmidt. Pincrete (talk) 11:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey Swinger

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

This is just a standard, mass produced amusement ride that is non unique or notable. Astros4477 (Talk) 04:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh - forgot I posted this page. But yeah, a few of the other Chessington rides ended up having lots of refs - but I think like Astros points out, this is one is just a standard model. Redirecting to the ride type (and have a note about the Chessington ride and dates there) makes sense. Earflaps (talk) 11:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why there should be a redirect. Do you think people would specifically search for this wave swinger out of the thousands worldwide? FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete searches provided very little about this ride. News provided 1 brief mention from 5 years ago, while highbeam provided another from 4 years ago. Other than that, zilch. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to BYU College of Family, Home and Social Sciences#Economics. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BYU Economics Department

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

Fails wp:gng: no in depth secondary sources exist for this university department, as is the case for most universities. Algircal (talk) 03:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, oh dear! Delete. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to BYU College of Family, Home and Social Sciences#Economics, where one paragraph sums it all up already. Nate • (chatter) 06:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively. I'd go along as suggested by Mrschimpf, but a mere redirect would remove sourced information. Bearian (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge/redirect as stated by Mrschimpf. Neutrality^talk 23:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nato Feelz

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

None of the citations used in this article (all of which are formatted incorrectly) contribute to an assertion of notability for the person who is the article's subject— they are links to places where the information being discussed may be found. Failing the appearance of multiple, reliable, independent, and verifiable sources as to this person's notability, I propose that the article be deleted. KDS4444^Talk 04:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N. INeverCry 04:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 11:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG, web searches turn up social media and sales outlets like the refs in the article Kraxler (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ivory Tower Foundation

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

Rather obvious open and shut case considering all my searches (News, Books, browser, NewspapersArchive, highbeam and thefreelibrary) and a search for mention from that book found nothing at all (aside from mirrors of course). It's also worth noting the foundation may no longer exist as the website is gone and there's no further evidence of them; it has basically had zero edits since then also suggesting its non-existence. I also understand this would first appear acceptable compared to some other articles (that urgently need deletion) but this basically has no signs of improvement so the time is now. SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - like the nom, I couldn't find any sources. shoy (reactions) 18:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage, fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Kraxler (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yup, searches returned nothing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 05:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ecosystem Corporation

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

Another rather obvious open and shut case with my searches (including the other names) finding nothing good at all (aside from this (a few mentions) and it seems the company may also be closed now (website is gone); it may've even closed around the time this was started as it's outdated and hasn't been noticeably edited since then. The only near notable thing would've been the Warren Buffett investment but that won't save it and there's no target for moving elsewhere. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is made up entirely of primary sources. Once those are trimmed, no article would be left. CorporateM (Talk) 17:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NYSE is always notable, but despite the article, they're not on it. DGG ( talk ) 01:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and DGG. Searches show nothing notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Horna#Discography. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hengen tulet

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

Article's subject does not appear to meet the requirements of WP:NALBUMS. I propose that the article either be deleted or turned into a redirect/ merge to the band, Horna. KDS4444^Talk 05:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple sources aside from this article's reference have revealed the new album by the group coming in September. This also includes Horna's Facebook page. - shadowartchitect (4 August 2015)

http://www.vboogieman.com/?p=181212 http://www.dailyheavymetalnews.com/2015/07/28/horna-reveals-new-album-hengen-tulet/ https://wtcproductions.bandcamp.com/album/hengen-tulet https://www.facebook.com/pages/Horna-Official/194755433889352 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowarchitect (talk • contribs) 12:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Facebook page is not considered an independent source, and cannot be used to support a claim of notability. Further, the fact that the album is coming out does not make it notable— the album needs to be the subject of multiple, reliable, independent, verifiable sources in order to qualify as notable independently of the artist or group that creates it. KDS4444^Talk 16:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note the similar article: Askel lähempänä Saatanaa. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 21:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge, per WP:NOT crystal ball. No coverage available to justify album having an article prior to release. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Richard Rohmer. Consensus that there shouldn't be an article here. Any useful content can be merged from the history. T. Canens (talk) 07:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimatum (novel)

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

Unsourced plot-only article about a probably non-notable book failing WP:PLOT, WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. It seems to be an interesting book, but that description would be better hosted on a book review site. The article could be retained by radically trimming the plot and adding sourced context information - but I wasn't able to find such sources. GermanJoe (talk) 19:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Richard Rohmer though needs plot editing. It may well be notable but sources will be 1970s Canadian newspapers: it was the best-selling novel in Canada in 1973. I found a review in an academic journal[16] but I don't have access to it. Colapeninsula (talk) 09:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 09:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no need to merge, since the article about him lists the books but doesn't include plots (as it shouldn't). We've recently been cleaning up around this author here at AfD, and I see this as part of this cleanup. This book is held in about ~140 libraries (worldwide, acc. to Worldcat), which is no where near "bestseller" level. I find no evidence of reviews beyond the one discovered by JAaron95. That one was in a small-ish journal of Canadian culture, which to me doesn't bring the book to WP:NBOOK notability. LaMona (talk) 17:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref #1, which looks like a fairly detailed and accurate source, mentions the sales number: "Ultimatum sold close to 30,000 copies". Similar to Separation (novel) we could retain the basic lead information in the main article (not sure if that still counts as "merge"). Ref #1 calls it his "most popular novel", so a short mention with a few details would certainly be OK. But I agree, that the lengthy plot is unnecessary. GermanJoe (talk) 01:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOCH

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

Non-notable, no secondary sources exist (as far as I could find). Did not submit for speedy deletion since there are multiple editors that have touched it. Jcmcc (Talk) 18:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 02:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 09:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Maybe should be merged somewhere as part of a different system.Caseeart (talk) 00:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of Chinese Macroeconomy

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

This is an allegedly important book written by an author for whom we apparently have no article, published by XLibris (misleading, since this is actually a translation sold through the print-on-demand house, not the original). The article lacks context other than a bald statement that it's a textbook. Guy (Help!) 17:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - looks like the article is mainly a work of self promotion. A longer version of the article exists here. For reference, an article about the author was deleted, see discussion. Jonpatterns (talk) 09:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 09:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for a supposedly notable book written 7 years ago, their is not a single reference to the book on the news, newspaper, highbeam or jstor searches, except for one showing that the book exists. Books, similarly shows that it exists, but that's all. Scholar shows that it received 2-3 brief mentions. Hardly notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 20:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Lyons

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

This is close to G4 territory, but sufficiently different to merit another AFD. The most important issue of notability doesn't seem to have been addressed. This local source has been written since but that still seems to the best source for providing evidence of notability. This other 2015 source doesn't appear reliable. I suggest redirecting and briefly mentioning him in The Zebra. SmartSE (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note the first two AFDs were about a different Adam Lyons. @Johnpacklambert: and @S3venevan: who !voted in the previous AFD. SmartSE (talk) 16:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 10:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see several articles cited in the sources about him. I would suggest cutting out sources not about this article subject. Tangledupinbleu chs (talk) 06:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was the nominator of the third AFD--actual deletion-- for Adam Lyons (UK dating coach), so all three previous discussions were about a diff. Lyons. This Lyons didn't muster G4 imo (diff. subject/not a recreation) and I believe I declined a speedy for this reasoning. Apart from that, the 30 Under 30 possibly warrants a weak keep for individual recognition. There's a couple profiles here and here that aren't referenced tda.. probably worth adding. My main issue is "The Zebra" subsection and lengthy excess not about Lyons. Worth cutting and I don't mind doing so. :) Overall, enough refs and Inc. recog. for a keep albeit slightly weak. Make sure to differentiate the subj. though. Jppcap (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Desi Dogs

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

no references indicating notability, created by SPA. valereee (talk) 16:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - unambiguous promotion of non-notable product. Even assuming this hotdog variety is popular locally or on a regional level, it still flatly fails WP:GNG. The few Google hits in English-language sources are mostly related to real-life Canines. GermanJoe (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- AfD is not a speedy--JAaron95 ^Talk 10:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing in WP:AFD preventing this kind of statement, which is actually quite common for clear cases. If you think this is inappropriate, you should probably start a broader discussion at WT:AFD or a village pump board. I stand by my assessment. GermanJoe (talk) 15:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 10:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsoursed and opinion like article. Fails WP:GNG. Article created by single purpose user -Rayabhari (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is nothing promotional but still notability is questionable and this is the reason it fails GNG. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 12:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as I found nothing to suggest better knowledge and sources. SwisterTwister talk 04:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Juthawong Naisanguansee

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

A long, long way off meeting the requirements of WP:BIO. The article makes a claim of significance for something or other, but there are no sources to back this up. SmartSE (talk) 12:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Couldn't find any third-party mention that establishes notability. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 10:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now (draft & userfy if needed) as I found nothing to suggest better sources. SwisterTwister talk 04:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches provided zero references to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DJ JY (Artist)

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about a DJ known for buying "likes". Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:BASIC for lack of available sources. - Mr X 11:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 10:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Has very few Facebook likes and virtually zero youtube views which supports claim that likes have been bought. Nothing notable found anywhere. Delete.Rayman60 (talk) 22:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - google news, google newspapers, and Highbeam produce zero hits. Clearly not notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as I found absolutely nothing to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rolando Gabriel Dy

(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) 10:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is evident in those reliable sources cited. And it's in being the son of a former boxing champion who's also a fighter despite not having won the number of required titles Yet.--RioHondo (talk) 03:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited and assuming he'll win major titles is clearly a case of WP:CRYSTALBALL. Papaursa (talk) 02:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being the son of a former boxing champion does not make him notable (see WP:NOTINHERITED). The interviews are focused more on the father than the son and routine sports coverage does not meet WP:GNG. As an MMA fighter he has no top tier fights, and only a so-so record in very minor MMA organizations, hence he fails to meet WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 02:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited. Lacks the coverage to meet GNG and fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights.Mdtemp (talk) 16:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 10:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails NMMA, coverage is WP:ROUTINE sports talk Kraxler (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of living princes and princesses

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

Per WP:LISTCRUFT. Wikipedia is not Hello Magazine and this list is just an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of everyone with a "prince" or "princess" title. Lists about lines of succession I can understand but I fail to see the point of this list. Betty Logan (talk) 08:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 10:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, primarily because I don't think a valid argument has been presented as to why the list should be deleted, and I can't think of a good reason to delete it. WP:LISTCRUFT is an essay and thus not a good reason for deletion, but this list seems to pass the criteria presented there anyway. The list has a well defined scope, and the subject is neither too broad nor too narrow to be listed. The list corresponds to a notable subject (that of princes and princesses), and the content is easily verifiable in reliable sources. There are no concerns about neutrality, original research, or any of the other potential problems with lists mentioned at WP:LISTCRUFT. The other stated reason for deletion, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, has absolutely no relation to this list. It certainly isn't a plot summary, lyrics database, listing of statistics, or software update log. I also don't think you can say the topic just isn't encyclopedic, as people with princely titles seems like the sort of thing you would expect a broad encyclopedia to cover (many of them are individually notable, and those that aren't would generally be expected to be mentioned somewhere, such as in the articles on their parents). I just don't see any good reason why this list should be deleted. Calathan (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simply being alive seems like very arbitrary criteria to me. Per WP:LISTN the grouping itself has to be notable, so in what way exactly are living princes more notable as a grouping than dead princes? Seems like very ephemeral criteria, and by your rationale you could impose any arbitrary criteria on a particular group of people and create a new list i.e. list of princesses through marriage, list of blonde princes etc, list of British princes etc. In the case of British princes we do have such an article since it is a notable set, but would you condone a list of living British princes for instance? Just because a particular group of people are notable doesn't mean we can contrive our own criteria and derive new lists. Are there any other lists of this nature on Wikipedia, where simply being alive is the criteria for inclusion? Betty Logan (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being a living prince or princess doesn't seem like an arbitrary criteria to me. For almost any notable topic, it seems natural to me to cover the current state of that topic. There are certainly other articles on Wikipedia limited to people who are alive, such as List of living centenarians, List of living cardinals, List of living former United States Senators, etc. In the case of List of living centenarians, the article had a strong keep consensus at AFD recently (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of living centenarians (2nd nomination)), suggesting that such lists are considered acceptable. Calathan (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why being alive is a notable characteristic in the case of centenarians since it is intriniscally tied to the topic i.e. you are notable for being alive and over the age of 100; in the case of senators and cardinals it seems as arbitrary as it does here. Being a living former senator, cardinal or prince is not inherently more notable than being a dead one is it? Betty Logan (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with these titles widely bestoed to members of royal families, this could get unruly. Especially since there is no reason to limit it to members of monarchical families still in power. It also is a collection by shared name, not function. Since some people with prince as title are soveiregn while others are just potential heirs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, arbitrary and indiscriminate with no informational value in this form. If anyone wants to see the living heirs to a particular throne, they will look to that particular throne's line of succession article, not to this awkward conglomerate. Little different than the list considered at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of teenage princes and princesses, also from the same creator, and which would have been deleted per the AFD discussion had the author not requested deletion before it was closed. postdlf (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary, redundant WP:FANCRUFT and WP:LISTCRUFT, the OTHERCRUFTEXISTS argument up there is unconvincing Kraxler (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My comments were not an "OTHERCRUFTEXISTS argument". I wasn't suggesting that all the articles I listed should be kept, and instead think that articles like List of living former United States Senators should be deleted (a list of all current people who are princes and princesses seems encyclopedic to me, while a list of former senators who happen to still be alive does not). I merely listed other lists of living people because Betty Logan asked if there were others. My comment about List of living centenarians was an argument to keep this list, but that was based on a consensus. The whole point of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is that if the other articles haven't been discusses, then they might also be things that should be deleted. Referring to a discussion that resulted in a consensus is a completely different matter. I think some of the other comments in favor of deletion seem reasonable, but yours is basically a meaningless WP:ITSCRUFT argument. Calathan (talk) 15:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep Lest we forget this is an encyclopedia for general users, i.e., a novice history student might not know where to begin a search on particular throne. This is a useful starting-point entry. SnowdenFan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No novice history student will get any useful info from this page. Kraxler (talk) 12:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wow, your omniscience is impressive. I'm assuming this empirically-based assessment stems from your decades of experience as a professor (i.e., Who makes bold-faced, absolute statements like this...?) SnowdenFan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you avoid ad hominem remarks, check out WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. By the way, the reason why "no novice history student will get any useful info from this page" is that the page has no historical info at all, it's a simple list of names and ages with partly faulty family relationships, no text, no history. Kraxler (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

-which is why the names are hyperlinked. SnowdenFan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 16:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amila Karunanayake

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

The subject is not notable and does not satisfy the criteria under WP:ANYBIO or WP:ARTIST. It was previously tagged for notability which was removed by the article's creator without any changesor additional references to support notability on the basis "Subject is only popular/notable amongst Sri Lankan community" Dan arndt (talk) 02:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I do see evidence that he is known in his community and has received ongoing coverage from 2007 onwards. It's not the greatest coverage, but it exists, and I think there is enough there to justify the article existing, although it does need quite a bit of tidying up and improving of citations/style. He is still receiving namechecks and coverage in 2015, now as a judge for these contests rather than as a winner. Despite my well-documented feelings on pageants, I don't see any compelling reasons why he shouldn't be on here, but similarly, I don't see anything super-compelling as to why he should - but I see many more reasons to lean towards keep. Mabalu (talk) 12:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Subject is only popular/notable amongst Sri Lankan community. He is not only a model but an upcoming film actor in Sri Lanka (may not be notable in Hollywood or Bollywood).DilJco (talk) 00:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, whether the subject is popular in Sri Lanka or not, the onus is on you to establish their notability in accordance with WP guidelines. Dan arndt (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, subject's notability is already established with available references and will be further improved.DilJco (talk) 02:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 10:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Searches on news, newspapers and JStor reveal a single 5 year old hit, which is only a brief mention. Highbeam reveals a couple of more, but again, brief mentions. 3 brief mentions in 5 years is hardly notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I checked all links and references and none are in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. --Randykitty (talk) 10:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nialaya Jewelry

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

not notable -- refs are just PR DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not sufficiently notable; sources are scant. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My searches found nothing outstanding to suggest improvement and notability with the best here, here and here. I would've suggested moving to Jannnik Olander but he's also AfD and seems non-notable. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 10:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. "Give it time" is not a valid retention argument. Sandstein 12:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flyin.com

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

advertising The Banner talk 01:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now with changes. It's not blatant advertising ("buy X product now, here's the link") I think if the promotional materials were removed, there is enough left behind to have an encyclopedic article. It notes awards won and claims to be the first of its type in its country. 331dot (talk) 01:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The creator has also stated on my talk page here that they want to work to make the needed changes; I think they should be given the chance to do so. 331dot (talk) 01:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Up to now the original author did not change a single character... The Banner talk 21:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People do have other things to do in their lives, as we all do. It's still early. 331dot (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So we support advertising by doing nothing? The Banner talk 21:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page is not blatant advertising. That said, I think we are approaching the end of a reasonable period of time for improvement. 331dot (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The subject belongs to a company called Saudi Ebreez, and the article was created by SPA User:Saraebreez, well, looks like they have nothing else to do but promoting this company. It's not like any odd volunteer would sacrifice his time to edit the article. Kraxler (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article created only about a week ago. Give it time for improvement. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 10:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was actually gonna close this as Keep but unbelievably since this was nominated there's been no improvements at all to the article, I do and I don't think it's blatant advertising but either way I think the best thing for this article is to be deleted & rewritten, If no improvements have occurred now at it's most "vulnerable" time than it never will happen. –Davey2010^Talk 03:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - moderately spammy, borderline G11. Agree with Davey2010: WP:TNT. --Randykitty (talk) 10:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phytoserm

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

Neologism and PROMO. Only two articles in pubmed that use this term. Article was created by biz dev executive for company marketing a "phytoserm" product. Jytdog (talk) 07:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 10:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to selective estrogen receptor modulator I don't see merger given that the only content is a dubious efficacy claim, but we can at least tell a reader what "SERM" means. Seyasirt (talk) 14:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a distinct whiff of WP:SYN and WP:COI. Guy (Help!) 15:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is already a redirect from SERM to selective estrogen receptor modulator. SERM is significantly used as an abbreviation. PhytoSERM is not. DGG ( talk ) 17:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / merge topic should be covered in SERM Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect / Merge to SERM. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Martin (trumpeter)

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

Trumpeter for Chicago Symphony Orchestra. After standard searches, does not seem to meet criteria for WP:MUSICBIO. The article in Chicago Classical Review is a good start, but not finding enough other significant coverage to meet notability threshold. As the name is same as the lead vocalist for Coldplay, searches can be more difficult then usual. Willing to withdraw if more suitable independent, reliable refs are found. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 10:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As principal trumpet at a world-known symphony orchestra, Martin has received significant coverage in The Chicago Tribune and other publications. Besides the refs in the article, see "Martin's trumpet brilliance steals show at CSO", Chicago Tribune, May 20, 2011, which said "..there was no doubt who stole the show. That honor fell to soloist Christopher Martin, the CSO's peerless principal trumpet. Somehow trumpeter seems too confining a term for him. Perhaps it would be closer to the mark to describe him as a superbly musical virtuoso who would make great music even if the ocarina were his chosen instrument. Martin dazzled on Thursday evening." Also TimeoutChicago had significant coverage: [17]. Martin's coverage is not limited to the Chicago paper, with Google News archive showing coverage in New Orleans and New York. Edison (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: the timeout ref you cite is an interview with Mr. Martin, and can't generally be used to show notability. See WP:INTERVIEW. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 07:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If being principal trumpet for the CSO isn't notable, what is? Simply by occupying that spot one is among the most famous trumpet players in the world (certainly top 20). Not Lebron James, but easily a Dwyane Wade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.153.127.140 (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to be really famous in classical music circles, although playing in an orchestra, he is also an acclaimed soloist, well, there's also Christopher Martin Shows Rare Musicianship with the Hendersonville Symphony Orchestra and Heimdall's Trumpet; Commissioned by the Chicago Symphony Orchestra for its principal trumpeter, Christopher Martin, ... and this and he played at the Atlanta Trumpet Festival, etc. Kraxler (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adel Aljabrin

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

Fails WP:BASIC TheMagikCow (talk) 16:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 17:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 17:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NOLYMPICS, if rather barely. PWilkinson (talk) 10:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NOLYMPICS. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Olympic competitors are presumed notable per WP:NSPORTS/WP:NOLYMPICS. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 05:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steptoe & Johnson PLLC

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

Promotional article about a law firm, largely written by undisclosed paid editors editing in violation of our terms of use, and post-prod restoration requested by another paid editor. Referenced only to primary sources, almost none of them independent, and the others trivial mentions. I don't think it quite rises to the level of a G11, but it's close, and even if the article subject does meet WP:GNG - which I see no evidence of - it should still be deleted per WP:TNT. —Cryptic 17:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 17:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 17:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is a huge mess, warranting the invocation of TNT, but on the other hand, this is a well-known and respected law firm, and would pass my standards of notability. Such a pity they appear to have wasted good money on paid but badly written editing. I'm worried that this could become a bad precedent, so I'm going to hold off on a !vote. Bearian (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Per this, this was an in-house job (as in, they had/have their employees work on this), so at least it's not someone masquarading as a professional wikipedia writer. Small consolation, just saying. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced; any refs present in the article are related not to the company but to Louis A. Johnson. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe redirect to Louis A. Johnson instead (where it is briefly mentioned) as my searches found a plethota of results here, here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The only mention I see at Louis A. Johnson is of Steptoe & Johnson (whose article is also a mess, though not as large of one). This firm is apparently a spinoff of that one. Without a direct mention in the founder's article, I can't support a redirect to it; and although this is mentioned in Steptoe & Johnson, a redirect there doesn't seem appropriate. —Cryptic 18:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not seeing any independent sources here. shoy (reactions) 18:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GTTC

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

This may not actually be fabricated but rather not well-known and the best my searches found was this. Thus with its less than acceptable state and no signs of improvement, there's nothing to suggest keeping. @Biscuittin, Rhododendrites, Sulfurboy, and Gbawden: SwisterTwister talk 17:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have found more references and I now oppose deletion. Biscuittin (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is enough to save it though, not as a hoax but still for notability. Simply for clarity, is that a keep, Biscuittin? SwisterTwister talk 23:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a keep. Biscuittin (talk) 00:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hoax or not, I'm seeing almost no information about this -- certainly not enough to pass WP:GNG. @Biscuittin: If the sources you're talking about are the ones you added to the article, these are social media sites and entirely primary -- thus neither contributes anything to a determination of notability. Is your keep to be interpreted as saying "it's notable"? That assumes significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources over a period of time. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. OK. I suppose the article can be re-created if more solid information becomes available. Biscuittin (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no independent sources and I can't find any information that suggests that this acronym is widely used. shoy (reactions) 18:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert for some new service created by a company which chose this acronym, seems to be some in-house WP:NEOLOGISM Kraxler (talk) 23:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Formula Ford Challenge

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

Small stub about a low level motorsport championship with no assertion of notability. There is little recognition through Google or coverage of the series from any reliable source. QueenCake (talk) 22:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Kante4 (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to be notable. Caseeart (talk) 01:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Searches reveal nothing to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Choosi

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

Doesn't appear to be notable based on the available RS: a bullet-pointed list on a consumer advocacy website which is essentially a rehash of the website content for people who don't feel like visiting it, and a one-line mention in what, despite "Source:AAP", looks very much like a press release. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Choosi is one the leading insurance comparison business in Australia, along with Compare the Market. It is backed by Holland group covering 7.2 million policy holders worldwide. [18] Choice magazine is one of the leading Australian consumer organisation that provides independent reviews on product & services. In Australia Choosi is one of the leading insurance comparison businesses along with others (mentioned in Choice magazine)I have also included the quality sources from SBS (govt owned site), Bloomberg to add credible citations. –[[User:Jame0360|Jame0360] (talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jame0360 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC) User:Jame0360 is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT[reply]
Delete per nominator. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now (draft & userfy if needed) as my searches "Choosi Australia" found nothing aside from passing mentions at News, Books, browser and highbeam. SwisterTwister talk 04:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Helal Miah

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

Unremarkable person who is just doing their job. Is an interview about investment advice in the Sunday Times enough to make him notable? Gbawden (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- In reading the bio, I could not see what he had done that made him notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as my searches here, here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches showed nothing which indicate this person meets notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, test nomination. (non-admin close) shoy (reactions) 18:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Test

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

Reason A8v (talk) 13:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 05:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

White phosphorus use in Iraq

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

I believe this does not conform to Wikipedia's policies on notability and neutral point of view and is giving undue weight to questionable propaganda pieces.

Other than one documentary (documentaries are generally not considered reliable sources) there are no sources or evidence that white phosphorus was used against civilians in Iraq. There are no conventions or international laws that ban its use against enemy militants as obscurant or incendiary weapon. Therefore, in accordance with Wikipedia's notability and NPOV guidelines, it seems to me that this article is giving undue weight to a questionable, invalid, and non-notable claim. Wikipedia is not a soapbox to spread rumors in order to support personal ideologies.
This article, to me, seems to be promoting a general pattern of bias. Pushing and making a big deal over unsubstantiated claims has no place in a serious encyclopedia. This article seems have a form of bias and subtil POV pushing.
Strangely, use of white phosphorus is implicitly questioned but insurgent tactics (e.g., child soldiers, attacking civilians, etc.) are not (at least not sufficiently). This has a whole article devoted to it even though the same things are covered in other places, which makes this "dead undue weight."

The single biggest problem with this is that there is no evidence for these allegations and no trustworthy sources either; this POV pushing babble should have no place in an encyclopedia. The very title implies that using WP in Iraq was wrong.

I'd encourage any reviewing editor to consider carefully the above points. Green547 (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A Wikipedia article is not an essay.--Rpclod (talk) 00:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per previous assessments. The Iraq War article might need a few tweaks after this. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The title of the article is misleading but the events it describes are undeniably notable. It is really about specific instances of WP firing which some claimed violated international law. It's not an essay. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammy1339: The title is definitely misleading, and, arguably, the content is also misleading. Wikipedia policy demands that we put due weight on reliable sources, not POV hand-waving. I don't think some documentary and what a few reporters said is reliable sources. "Some claimed." Yes, anybody can claim anything, but the actual convention is quite clear; WP may be used as an obsurant or incendiary weapon, and that is precisely what happened. "Specific instances." Sorry, but I see no specific instance mentioned in the article (or, frankly, elsewhere) that would actually violate international law. Wikipedia shouldn't be a platform to throw around unsubstantiated claims; that's why the notability guideline is here. Finally, if this article was really written with NPOV (not an essay), the "Use in Halabja" section would be equally puffed up with allegations and babbling, but of course it isn't because there is obvious bias here. Green547 (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Green547: If you're saying that the evidence that these actions actually constituted a chemical attack is questionable, then yes, I agree with you. Given that upwards of 40% of artillery shells fired are WP, and some of them will inevitably fall directly on the enemy or on civilians, it is basically impossible to support such a claim. However, the accusations themselves are notable due to the attention they received from media. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammy1339: Yes, media, media. I see your point. News: media is actually very biased. It's verifiable that the media and other hand-wavers make these claims, but is it notable, considering what a whole lot of other reliable sources and knowledgeable people say (not to mention the ACTUAL conventions)? I'd still argue for deletion of this. If anything, a new article could be created under a NPOV title, which would actually give accurate information: "these are unsubstantiated allegations that lack support from the evidence and which do not have any real convention/international law basis." Moon landing conspiracy theories might get a lot of attention, but just take a look at the article describing that. Green547 (talk) 18:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Green547: The short answer is that media coverage makes it notable. NPOV is not a reason for deletion, and the solution is almost always to find reliably sourced refutations of notable dubious claims and add them to the article, not to omit the questionable claims from mention. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammy1339: Then also take a look at my last bullet point in the original text. Besides that, I believe that this would need such a drastic rewrite that it'd be better just to delete and start over. The article in its present form is basically just POV babble and no real refutations or points are detailed. Green547 (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to White phosphorus where the incidents, accusations and media controversy described here can become one section in a series of very similar incidents of incidents, accusations and media controversy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
White phosphorus already has quite a lot of coverage on this sorry topic. Basically everything that's here is already there; more reason to delete this.Green547 (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Such a merge would be fine, and I believe this page was actually split from there. However, there probably ought to be separate articles on military use of WP and the chemical itself, so another split might be in order. I notice the current white phosphorus article is almost all about the former. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind: I see we already have allotropes of phosphorus#White phosphorus. Certainly white phosphorus should redirect there. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I BOLDly moved the page to White phosphorus munitions. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~The archives on the talk page are broken and apparently I lack the technical expertise to fix them. If anyone would be so kind...~~ You broke all the talk archive pages. Manually moving them.--Savonneux (talk) 03:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried fixing it a bit but by the time you cut out all the POV stuff and the questionable assertions that are thinly connected to the refs there isnt much left aside from what is in the White phosphorus munitions article. It looks like a WP:POVFORK that has just stealthed by for years. The references essentially cover one incident with primary accounts WP:PSTS, there is a dearth of secondary information (investigations? interviews after the fact?). On top of it all there is a lot of open ended conclusion drawing. --Savonneux (talk) 07:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I endorse what is said by Savonneux, specifically that it looks like a WP:POVFORK and that there is a lot of conclusion drawing, with questionable connection to sources, WP:Synth. Why anyway would this be a distinct article, rather than as part of Iraq War, White phosphorus munitions, or Halabja? Green547, is wrong in his points 2 & 3 (the other side doing bad things isn't an argument here), but he is right about this article. Pincrete (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no that's not what I've said. In summary, point # 2 is that this article seems to be doing subtil POV pushing and is biased (it matters not which POV it is). Point # 3 is that we're paying too much attention and weight on these (obviously unsubstantiated) claims, while not making that big a deal about REAL war crimes (well documented, with reliable sources, and supported by evidence). Thus this coverage is unbalanced. Coupled with the fact that this is already written down in other articles, this makes Use of WP in Iraq "dead undue weight" and obvious POV babble. I've modified my points to avoid any misunderstandings. Green547 (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an original essay, not an encyclopedic topic. Get the information on American use into White phosphorus munitions, which this piece forks. Carrite (talk) 02:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:POVFORK of White phosphorus munitions article as above. Anotherclown (talk) 03:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 16:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bureau Veritas Consumer Products Services India

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

Article is about a division of Bureau Veritas. There is no significant coverage about this specific division of the company. Whpq (talk) 11:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 12:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 12:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - subdivision without evidence for significant notability independent from the parent company. Consequently the entire article contains only self-describing WP:MILL information (the parent article suffers from similar problems and could use cleanup, but at least that one has some minimal evidence for notability). If interesting, verifiable facts about the subdivision exist, add a small section to the parent article - sourced by independent reliable sources. GermanJoe (talk) 12:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - previous version deleted as A10 to Bureau Veritas. This version makes no better case for a separate article. As the author (a sock?) was unwilling to accept a redir to BV, deletion is the only option left. Bazj (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Search revealed nothing to show notability of this division, separate from parent company. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 16:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ekrehmat productions

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

The company was founded in 2014. The only film at its page is attributed to other company, White Hill Productions, which was recently deleted as non-notable. The website of the company is under construction. All in all, I do not see any notability at the moment. Ymblanter (talk) 10:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 11:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 11:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 11:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Non notable Production company.Ireneshih (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Non notable Production company, no independent RSs.Pincrete (talk) 11:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as my searches found nothing to suggest even minimal improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The general consensus is that referencing is not sufficient. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dirngulbai Misech

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

Dirngulbai Moreyna "UB" Misech is a 17 year old swimmer from Palau who has competed in International swimming competitions, most recently the 2015 World Aquatics Championships (OceaniaSport.com). Prior to this, she broke the Palauan record (her own) for the 100m butterfly during the 2015 Pacific Games (IslandTimes.us) and had broken a number of national records (400 meter freestyle, 100 meter butterfly, 1500 meter freestyle and 400 meter individual medle) at the Saipan International Meet (Island Times, SaipanTribune.com) She has also participated in the 2013 World Aquatics Championships (FoxSportsPulse) At first glance that doesn't seem too shabby for a 17-year old but above are near certainly the only sources which are not just results (another one from FoxSports Pulse talks about here co-winning the Annual IP&E Palau Challenge open water swim), some are borderline routine coverage with only the Island Times (which is a website, maybe newspaper, from Palau) to go into any kind of in depth biographical information. Furthermore that last source is the only one (with the Saipan Tribune at a stretch) that is not a primary source, Oceania Sport is an association of swimming federations from the region and FoxSports Pulse is a website dedicated to grassroots sport with the articles often written by concerned parties (such as the Oceania Swimming Association). What that leaves you is one independent source (the Island Times) and a scattering of primary sources, most of which are just results such as this one (PG2015.gems.pro) and I'm not making a selection, this is all the coverage you can find that is not her name and result. The question is, is one independent source, a scattering of primary/borderline primary sources enough to establish notability? In my eyes definitely not, otherwise you could create about a million pages on high school basketball players in the U.S. that get more press coverage than Misech. This article's subject is not notable for her sports career (her national records still had her placed near last or last in the Pacific Games) nor for the coverage she recieves and the article should therefore be deleted. ArmstrongJulian (talk) 10:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 11:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 11:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete- At this point of time, Dirngulbai Moreyna doesn't meet notability.Ireneshih (talk) 11:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NSPORT - WP:SPORTCRIT "they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level" Competed at the 2013 World Aquatics Championships and 2015 World Aquatics Championships, which is the highest level competition for swimming. Found this in about 10 seconds. Suggest the nominator reads WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lugnuts: Yes, I found the same reference when I did my own basic Google search, too, but I immediately recognized that the subject Palauan swimmer is a member of the "Palau Swimming Association," and therefore the linked source (the Palauan Swimming Association's website hosted by FoxSports), although quite possibly reliable, is not independent of the subject and therefore cannot be used as a basis to establish the subject's notability. Please note that our general notability guidelines require significant coverage of a given subject in multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which this is. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ You can vote only once *@Lugnuts: I know I'm not going to convince you to change your mind but at least give reasonable arguments against deletion. Wikipedia policy is simple a subject must be notable, Dirtlawyer1 just gave you the definition, if you read the WP:NSPORT you linked, it clearly says in the opening statement: "[...] conversely, the meeting of any of these [sport specific criteria] criteria does not mean that an article must be kept", that's because its only likely to have sufficient sources. I don't see for one second how the sources above (that I searched, you've provided nothing in addition) meet the notability guideline, they are neither significant (only one article, at a stretch two, go past routine coverage), mutiple (at best you can find around 15-20 pages with her name, which don't constitute sources), independent (if you read above, I already said that FoxSports Pulse is not FoxSports, it's a website dedicated to grassroots sports in that it serves as a platform for organisations posting their own content, in this case the Palauan Swimming Association, or Triathlon association etc.). --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've provided multiple independent sources in your opening arguement! This person meets WP:NSPORT, end of. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article subject is a non-notable competition swimmer. At present, there is no specific notability guideline for competition swimmers to provide additional guidance. Therefore, we must rely almost entirely on the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG for our analysis of the subject's notability, which requires the following significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Let's parse those elements of the GNG standard:

significant coverage (more than pure statistics, more than one and two-sentence mentions, more than trivia, more than routine coverage per WP:ROUTINE);

multiple (at a bare minimum, more than one source that satisfies the standards for significant coverage, independence, and reliability);

independent (unrelated to the subject; no websites of organizations in which the subject is a member; no governing bodies of the subject sport such as college sports conferences, the NCAA, USA Swimming, FINA, the U.S. Olympic Committee, the International Olympic Committee, etc.);

reliable sources (as described by WP:RS, from which we usually exclude blogs and other content that is not subject to professional editorial review).

In the case of this subject, a Google search based on the subject's unusual name quickly reveals multiple online references to her name, but Google hits are not the standard by which we judge notability. A careful review of the online references shows that the overwhelming majority of them are simple results lists that include nothing more than her name, events in which she participated, and the times she achieved in those events, with little or no prose -- well within the definition of "routine coverage". There are a handful of other sources that actually describe the subject's event results in a sentence or two of prose, but these do not rise to the level of "significant coverage." Then there are one or two examples of significant coverage in non-independent sources, such as the Palau Swimming Association and Oceania Swimming Association, but these are disqualified as serving as the basis of the subject's notability because they are sports governing bodies, organizations in which the subject is a member, or groups which exist to promote the sport of swimming in those regions. While I will do my best to maintain an open mind if other discussion participants present new evidence of significant coverage of the subject in multiple, independent, reliable sources, so far nothing I have found in my own online searches, presented in this AfD discussion, or included in the existing article satisfies the GNG standard. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Dirtlawyer1, but you're wrong. This person meets WP:NSPORT by competing at the top level swimming competition. And add to that all the national records they hold, that easily passes WP:GNG. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts, satisfying the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG has absolutely nothing to do with national records from the Australia, China or the United States, let alone national records from Palau. To recap, satisfying GNG requires significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which have already been pointed out to you by several users (including, ironically, the deletionist nominator themselves). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts, accusing another editor of being a "deletionist" is a personal attack per WP:NPA. Please ~~strike~~ that portion of your comment. Thank you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GNG appears met. Coverage from Island Times I think is 100% good. The FoxPulseSport and OceaniaSport coverage was posted on their respective swimming federation websites. However, it was actually written by The Reporters’ Academy UK. Found this link for the [19] and I think its a judgment call if they are independent - they were apparently hired by the Oceania Sports Association, but I does not appear they had any control over the content. However, to me I judge that they are independent since control over content is not show and they are non-profit. I also like to keep in mind that Palau has two official languages, with three other state languages being official depending on the state, and Japanese being a commonly spoken language. So basically there are six languages and I think its safe to bet that the editors are only looking at the English sources. A good amount of coverage was found in looking in only a partial sphere of what is available. In view of all this, I say keep.RonSigPi (talk) 23:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RonSigPi: I strongly dispute that the coverage of the Oceania Swimming Association and Palauan Swimming Association are independent of the subject. But for the existence of those swimming organizations, and the posting of articles about one of their member swimmers on their websites, there would be nothing approaching significant coverage except one article in a fairly obscure online newspaper. FYI, there is apparently only a single Palau-based newspaper, the IslandTimes.us. It's based in the only real population center, Koror, where 11,000 of the island's 20,000 people live. And, no, we do not assume coverage exists. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to strongly dispute that the coverage is independent. I, however, do not agree with you (does it make more of an impact if I say I strongly do not agree with you?) As mentioned above, the content was actually written by a third-party. Yes they were hired by an interested part, but that can be said about all media. The New York Times, Washington Post, etc. are owned by companies with varying interests & loyalties and make money by running ad space most often to companies. That can influence coverage just the same, but they can be seen as generally remaining independent just like I think the Academy can. Also, WP:GNG states "'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent." I think you are taking a hyper-high standard of independent. What I read, considering the examples give, is what a person writes and their team. For example, a press release by Tiger Woods press agent is not independent. However, an article by an international governing body - here the Oceania Swimming Association - is independent from the subject. I would have no problem with an article written by the PGA Tour being independent. If this were an article about the Oceania Swimming Association I would agree with you, but the subject here is Dirngulbai Misech a swimmer from one of the many nations of the organization. Dirngulbai Misech has no control over what is said (unlike Tiger Woods press agent) and therefore I consider their text independent in view of what WP:GNG states on its face. Also, please don't put words in my mouth. I merely was pointing out a fact that I though would be worth note to the Admin that renders the decision. I never said we assumed coverage exists, I was merely saying we were only examining part of the pool of sources available. Its a worthwhile point, but any assumption drawn is from you.RonSigPi (talk) 02:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re "independence" - Ron, we've recently deleted articles that relied on MLB.com and NFL.com to establish notability, and in the past we've deleted articles that relied on NCAA.com, college newspapers, conference websites and national governing associations. They're not independent media -- they have an interest in promoting their member athletes, and are nothing like truly independent media, regardless of who writes the article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lugnuts: "Several editors" claiming significant coverage does not include me, if you actually read anything you'd see I listed the (rare) sources by due diligence (oh, you should try this thing called researching an article, it does wonders apparently) then clearly said the coverage was not significant. @RonSigPi: You're according too much importance to the independence issue - which considering the Reporters Academy was thanked for "the very positive angles you provided in your news articles" and clearly lists the Oceania Swimming Association as a client is a moot point - what also matters is significant coverage from multiple sources. Only one article goes in depth about the subject, that is definitely not enough for achieving notability in form or quantity, I can find any number of people who are talked about in local newspapers (which the Island Times is) with a few mentions from sporting federations, that does not mean they are inherently notable. As for making assumptions on putative coverage on completely hypothetical arguments (I doubt the media in Palau is equally active in all six languages, in all cases all but Japanese use the same script so results should come up anyway) it's not our role to prove to you coverage doesn't exist but your's (as the "apologists" to my "deletionist", need I say this is tongue-in-cheek) to establish notability (the very basis on which wikipedia articles are created or conversely shouldn"t be created). --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 08:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've done plenty of research, which you're fully aware of. This article meets WP:NSPORTS and there are plenty of sources (some of which you've provided!) too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though swimmer has competed at international swimming events, swimmer is non-notable. FINA is known to give small countries that would otherwise never be competitive a chance to swim on the big stage. Also, I don't accept the sources that are presented. Most of them aren't in-depth and provides very little information. Philipmj24 (talk) 11:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter if you "don't accept the sources" - they pass for coverage. It's neither here nor there what FINA do for small countries - it's a weak argument for deletion. And you also state "Most of them.." So some of them are in-depth. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, now I see how you "found" this AfD. Dirtlawyer1 has been very sneaky and has been canvasing, implying that people who don't agree with him are not "knowledgeable editors". I hope the admin who closes this takes a good look at this. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no, Lugnuts. Please read WP:CANVASS, especially the section entitled "Appropriate notification," for a better understanding of when notices about pending discussions are appropriate. Phillip is one of the most active members of WikiProject Swimming, has created over 600 articles on international athletes, including over 400 on competitive swimmers and swimming competitions -- his competitive swimmer bios represent almost 10% of the total of 4400. Phillip's knowledge on point speaks for itself. If you don't believe that the most frequent editors of swimmer articles might have helpful perspectives on the notability of a lower level competitive swimmer, then your opinion also speaks for itself. FYI, I left a neutrally worded notice on Phillip's user talk page, which was identical to the one I also left on the talk page of WikiProject Swimming at the same time. Before you accuse me or anyone of improper canvassing, I urge you to review the actual behavioral guidelines of WP:CANVASS. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh YES, Dirtylawer. It's clearly canvassing. An editor who hasn't been around for ages, and you suddenly ping him to this discussion. That's pretty low and an obvious bad faith attempt to push your agenda through. Shame on you. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts, I made the decision entirely on my own without the influence of Dirtlawyer. Philipmj24 (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep digging, Lugnuts, and it's just going to get more embarrassing for you. From his registered account in the last two weeks, Phillip has edited four separate articles about 2015 FINA world championship, including creating a new article about a 2015 FINA gold medalist: [20]. Phillip has a long and well established history of editing swimming articles from a string of easily identified IP addresses, and not just from his primary account, during the day and when he is away from his home computer. In the past year, these IP addresses include (but are not limited to):

IP User:137.200.0.106 [21];
IP User:137.200.1.109 [22];
IP User:76.77.128.42 [23];
IP User:76.77.128.38 [24];
IP User:146.7.56.255 [25]
IP User:146.7.58.4 [26].

These are just the ones from which he has edited his Phillipmj24 user page; given that these are dynamic IP addresses, I am quite sure that these represent just a fraction of the total. If I start sorting through American Olympic swimmers looking for IP addresses that geolocate to Springfield, Missouri or the Social Security Administration, I can demonstrate that he is probably the single, most active editor on the topic of competitive swimming. Do you have any more accusations to make, Lugnuts? And not that it matters, but it does look like Phillip -- from either his primary account or IP addresses -- has edited a lot more articles related to the 2015 FINA world championships in the last two weeks than you: [27]! Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you did! Glad that's all cleared up. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. Keep it WP:CIVIL, please. Thank you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you for providing me info on all his WP:SOCK activity! Doesn't look good for your sock friends/tag-team buddies now. Oh dear. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now you've crossed the line, Lugnuts. In addition to demonstrating that you clearly don't understand the concept of "appropriate notification" per WP:CANVASS, you have now accused a fellow editor of sock-puppetry based on your clear misunderstanding of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Before you speak further on the subject, I urge your to read and comprehend the Wikipedia policy to which I linked, which in brief, says the following:

The general rule is one editor, one account. Do not use multiple accounts to mislead, deceive, vandalize or disrupt; to create the illusion of greater support for a position; to stir up controversy; or to circumvent a block, ban, or sanction. Do not ask your friends to create accounts to support you. Do not revive old unused accounts and use them as different users, or use another person's account. Do not log out just to vandalize as an IP address editor.

Bottom line: any registered editor may edit without being logged in provided they are not editing anonymously to "mislead, deceive, vandalize or disrupt." If you make such an accusation again, without any evidence of misconduct, I will personally file the ANI report for violations of WP:NPA. Are we clear, sir? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrally-worded notices of this AfD discussion have been provided, in accordance with the "appropriate notification" standards of WP:CANVASS, in the following locations:

Additional neutrally-worded notices of this discussion may provided, as appropriate. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never said anything about "mislead, deceive, vandalize or disrupt." The bit of sock you need to look at is Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Legitimate_uses. You pretty much dug up the IP edits to avoid an SPI/ANI case against "Phillip". Very clever. I will notify various people about this discussion too. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although judging by the talkpage of User talk:137.200.1.109, it is being used for disruptive edits. Maybe you want to correct me on that too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will correct you, again, Lugnuts. Philip has an exemplary editing record on Wikipedia. The IP address you noted above is a dynamic IP address at the Social Security Administration, where he has been employed for the past year. Before 2014, he was a college student in Missouri, after serving his country in the U.S. Marine Corps. I can also find dynamic IP addresses that geolocated to Springfield, Missouri, and before that, those that were registered to the U.S. Department of Defense before his college days. He has been editing Wikipedia swimming and Olympics articles longer than I have been onwiki. There's nothing improper about constructively editing from an IP address, nothing "clever" or improper here; just your repeated assumptions of bad faith contrary to WP:AGF. If you have any more questions about the WP:SWIMMING gang, including pertinent subjects about the notability of competitive swimmers, do feel free to keep asking questions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and just for the record, I have three registered alternative accounts myself:

1. User:Dirtlawyer2: Olympics;

2. User:Dirtlawyer3: Sock Hunter; and

3. User:Dirtlawyer4: All-Americans.

Feel free to investigate all of them, too, if it makes you happy. All of them are registered and disclosed and being used for legitimate purposes, including the maintenance of very large watch lists for Olympic swimmers, college sports articles targeted by a long-time sock puppet, and college football All-Americans. But please cease and desist with the false and unsupported accusations of canvassing and sock-puppetry. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to know a lot about his background. I don't really give a shit about a failed Marnie or whatever he is supposed to be. Of course they have a legitimate reason to edit logged out. Nothing odd about that at all. Ever. Haha, swimming gang. Glad you said that and not me. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dirtlawyer - nothing to hide, nothing to fear. Don't collapse comments again. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Eeeesh. Without respect to the accusations flying around, the subject doesn't pass the GNG, pure and simple. Of the various sources cited, all but one fail. One of the Island Times cites, both of the FoxSportsPulse cites, the Saipan Tribune cite, the Oceania Sports cite, all of these very plainly fail under WP:ROUTINE -- these are typical meet coverage pieces, where the subject is mentioned only casually and fleetingly, mixed in with the results of numerous other swimmers. The Pacific Games page is a simple table, and does not provide "significant coverage" to the subject at all: its information can certainly be used to verify facts, but it cannot be used to sustain notability. I'm failing to find any mention of the subject at all on those reportersacademy cites, and if someone might be so kind as to point one out, I'd appreciate it. The only cite that provides extensive non-routine coverage of the subject is this Island Times piece - [31] - but there's one small problem: what about this paper, with no prior mention on Wikipedia, does anyone claim meets standards for reliability, fact-checking and accuracy, and what evidence does anyone proffer to back such a claim up? (In the best case, that's only a single source.)
As far as NSPORT and SPORTCRIT go (err, Lugnuts, they link to the same guideline, and I'm unsure how you arrived at the premise that they're separate), I think Lugnuts is being a bit disingenuous. NSPORT sets out no explicit default guideline for all other sports not otherwise mentioned; there isn't one, and such athletes must meet the GNG ... which in fact ALL athletes must do nonetheless. There is no explicit criteria covering swimmers or divers, and if there had been, Lugnuts, as you're implying here, you wouldn't have sought comment on creating one as you did in this diff, four days ago: [32]. As such, no presumptive notability can be claimed.
Finally, to Ron's suggestion that there might be non-English language sources out there: as I expect everyone is well aware, it is not acceptable to speculate that such sources might possibly exist, and then expect such speculation is by itself a reason to retain an article. One must demonstrate that they do, and this being a BLP, it's very firmly the case that inferences or conjectures on that count cannot be made. Ravenswing 22:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See the talk page for a lengthy comment about this deletion discussion, GNG, and systemic bias. It is neither an argument to keep the article, nor an argument to delete the article, which is why I left it there rather than here. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Legends Of Pakistan

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

List with unclear inclusion criteria. A more proper title would be "Notable Pakistani people", but that would be too broad. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 07:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 07:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 07:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. List of Pakistanis already exists and is very comprehensive (hence no reason to merge). And as far as I'm aware, there is no defined criteria as to what constitutes a 'legendary Pakistani', so this list is completely useless. Elspamo4 (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary, duplicating content of List of Pakistanis which is in nice shape already. Kraxler (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Redundant, and the title suggests an NPOV issue. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Miss World countries

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

fancruft without independent sources conform WP:RS The Banner talk 07:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find any evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's WP:LISTCRUFT Kraxler (talk) 00:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definitely WP:LISTCRUFT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Rochester Zen Center. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chapin Mill Buddhist Retreat Center

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

Not Notable. No WP:Reliable sources BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 07:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 07:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 07:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rochester Zen Center --EPadmirateur (talk) 11:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EPadmirateur Why merge? I'm not seeing an obvious and exact connection between the two. SwisterTwister talk 05:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because the Chapin Mill Retreat Center was built by the Rochester Zen Center, is used almost exclusively by and for the Rochester Zen Center. The land was donated by a member of the Rochester Zen Center to the Center for the purpose of holding meditation retreats by the Rochester Zen Center there. There is a paragraph about this in the article about the Center. --EPadmirateur (talk) 11:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless this can actually be merged as my searches found nothing better than this and this. SwisterTwister talk 05:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Love4Sound

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

Rather confusing article about a non-notable record label; article also appears to be copy-pasted from various other articles. Prod contested by IP without reason. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Non-notable company, no place in Wikipedia.Ireneshih (talk) 11:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Non-notable aside, created by banned user (Love4Sound) and also a double creation where a substantially similar article was created within hours of each other.--Cahk (talk) 03:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and above editors. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perceptron Inc.

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

Fails WP:CORP notability requirements. Good-faith search for Google news and web sources came up empty except for routine earnings announcements, one acquisition announcement (which was a press release) and a number of other company press releases. Ditto for HighBeam, with Wireless News, Quality, Manufacturing Close-Up and other trade mags hosting a bunch of corp press releases. — Brianhe (talk) 03:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 07:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 07:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nom. CorporateM (Talk) 01:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as my searches found nothing particularly good here and here. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nom and above editors. Searches revealed no sources which meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Yelawolf

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

A trivial list, everything important is in Yelawolf discography. Koala15 (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment can you expand on what you mean in your reasoning for deletion? I fail to see what triviality has to do with this. Azealia911 _talk 01:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would also like to know why this was nominated in AFD, W1i2k3i45 (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC) - blocked sock. GermanJoe (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I meant that this article is redundant to his discography since all of his guest appearances and singles are already listed in his discography. As for album songs, those can be found in his album articles. Koala15 (talk) 02:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, contains a lot of non-notable entries, it's an WP:INDISCRIMINATE mixed bag without encyclopedic value, the songs (as far as necessary) are mentioned at Yelawolf discography and the articles on the notable entries. Kraxler (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete useless article. Imsare (talk) 02:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable recording artist currently signed to a major recording label. Succeeds in WP:Artist, WP:MUSIC, & WP:GNG W1i2k3i45 (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC) blocked sock. GermanJoe (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@W1i2k3i45: No one is contesting the notability of Yelawolf as an artist. The question is whether this list of Yelawolf's songs is suitable as an entry in an encyclopedia in accordance with WP:NOT. Mz7 (talk) 03:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck 2 comments per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. GermanJoe (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced and poorly organized. As has been pointed out, Yelawolf discography already contains most of this information (as well as additional info). Discog is more thorough and easier to navigate. Fuzchia (talk) 05:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per nom and other editors above. Clearly redundant. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Hewitt

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

Notability is not inherited. This person has done nothing of significance other than sleep with a royal. Cagepanes (talk) 02:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That's what they said about Diana too. Plenty enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sadly this man was big news for a long time in the UK and has been covered multiple times in reliable media. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - coverage exists and meets WP:GNG. If this coverage in reliable sources is really necessary and relevant from a journalistic point of view is a completely different question, but not our concern. GermanJoe (talk) 14:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Sufficiently notorious for us to keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Lots of coverage; it is not relevant whether we think what he has done is significant. W. P. Uzer (talk) 05:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Sufficient major media coverage TheWarOfArt (talk) 22:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PeerCast (app)

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

No legit claim to notability. Fails WP:CORP. I can only find two credible sources on it and they mention it in passing. Sulfurboy (talk) 01:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability. I found this passing mention but it's not that much. Ana r chyte 12:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 11:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 11:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software company article of unclear notability. The only independent significant coverage in the current refs is the longer http://digital.di.se/ piece. One piece of significant coverage is typically insufficient to establish notability. The other refs are PR, incidental mentions, or published by the university where the project was developed. A search turned up no additional significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 11:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Lazear

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 00:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is having 100 credits in IMDB non-notable? http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0493851/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sovereignqueen (talk • contribs) 21:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The article needs some work, but he's been involved in 100+ films. That's a huge amount, and some of those films are quite well known. If one does some digging I am sure more sources will pop up with the amount of work he's done. I'll give it a go. --Cagepanes (talk) 02:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Involvement in 100+ films at the level he is is not notable. A number of films were listed as a gaffer or asst. camera person. reddogsix (talk) 03:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To be honest, I'm surprised there isn't more out there source wise for him with that many projects. I couldn't find anything notable - or even solely about him that wasn't self-created. So I think the deletion is appropriate. --Cagepanes (talk) 03:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable minor film worker, questionable sources, fake credits (was only assistant cameraman on Swordfish and even IMDb doesn't list any participation in Rat Race) Kraxler (talk) 01:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blueline Productions

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

Non-notable (possibly dissolved) music production duo. No significant coverage found via Google, article is also completely unsourced and orphaned. GermanJoe (talk) 03:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:MUSBIO. sovereign°sentinel (my mess) 06:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree w/above. Neutrality^talk 18:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as my searches found no good sources to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spike Volleyball Magazine

AfDs for this article:

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

Speedily renominating as the previous discussion was closed as no consensus. Rationale remains the same; the sources that were added to the article probably aren't enough to establish notability (the award does not appear to be a major award). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete only primary sources provided. Magazine existed less than 3 years. LibStar (talk) 09:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- minor magazine, and the sources provided do not IMO establish notability. Reyk _YO! 13:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (draft & userfy if needed) as my searches found nothing good at all to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. T. Canens (talk) 22:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Medrar for contemporary art

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

Probably not notable non-profit art exhibit, only 1 somewhat usable source (ahramonline). This is a copy/paste move from Draft:Medrar for Contemporary Art. The article currently lacks a few more sources to establish notability (the draft has been declined after the content was already copy/pasted). A Google search for addtional references shows only few hits. Suggest to delete the live article and continue work on the draft version to find more reliable sources (and to re-phrase the article's promotional language). GermanJoe (talk) 15:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no verifiable sources in English. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete I'm not sure how a Google news search with 19 hits (17 from Al-Ahram) counts as "no verifiable sources in English", but the fact that the only in-depth news coverage comes from a single newspaper has me leaning towards delete. If someone can find more sources, I will be swayed towards keep. Primefac (talk) 12:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contra (app)

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

The article appears well source, but that kind of falls apart under scrutiny. Antrocent (♫♬) 19:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG. The sources are mostly inadmissible; the coverage from reputable independent sources does not mention Contra. There might be enough here to justify an article on Khazan, but not the app itself. ubiquity (talk) 19:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Some sources do actually mention Contra specifically, i.e. the interview with Kapur by Kaleb Butt and the prMac article. (I am the author of the article for the record). I just found more relevant sources and added them at 20:31. (They are: Smudis TV iOS App Review, Product Hunt discussion about Contra, article on The Cheat Sheet, article on Southwest Shadow, and Engineering.SG Show and Tell about Contra). I hope this addresses your concerns and you will reconsider, thanks. Indybones33 (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please see Wikipedia policy on Verifiability so you will know what I mean by inadmissible sources. I do not believe that you have yet produced reliable and independent sources that indicate that subject is notable. ubiquity (talk) 13:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wouldn't the sheer number of sources that reference the app make it relevant, as enough people have taken notice of the app and actually reviewed it? Also, The Cheat Sheet's founder is Damien Hoffman, who was a writer for the Huffington Post, which is a reputable source. The author of the article from The Cheat Sheet is a reputable tech journalist who has written for Cheat Sheet and NationSwell. According to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, section Biased or opinionated sources, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective...While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context," which should apply to any app reviews. Reviews, which are opinions, shouldn't necessarily have to be fact-checked articles because they are opinions of the thing being reviewed, and the "facts" about what is being reviewed are clearly evident from using the app. Also, Smudis TV is a popular app reviewer on YouTube. In addition, Engineers.SG is a reputable Singaporean tech meetup, which features developers in Singapore. Indybones33 (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 11:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 11:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability has not been shown, most sources in the article are not independent, unreliable or not about the subject. Anyway, it seems to be just another app, with routine coverage in sales outlets, It could be mentioned sometime if an article on the creator of the app is written, when he becomes notable. In the meanwhile... Kraxler (talk) 01:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Melvin Wright

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

Seems not notable (after having consulted the notability guidelines) Bjornte (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 19:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 19:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the creator of this article, I have revised the page in a way that I believe addresses concerns about notability, specifically discussion of the active role Wright has played in high-profile litigation at the national level and in Florida. Adamr.p1s (talk) 16:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this article is properly cited and adds value to Wikipedia, I don't think there are any significant notability issues that deem this deletion-worthy Preceding comment was added by User:66.185.109.71. — 66.185.109.71 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete - promo advert, just another lawyer trying to WP:SOAPBOX his positions and drumming up clients, the "awards" are all in-trade recognitions, handed out by the thousands, sources in the article are connected to the subject, don't mention the subject (#1), directory listings, press releases and a few trivial mentions. Kraxler (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is pretty much a resume. Subject is no more notable than anyone else at his firm, or any other firm in America. JJMC89 said it quite well about the in-house awards, and I don't see mainstream coverage on the actual subject here. He's mentioned in passing, but that's not coverage of him. It's about the event. --Cagepanes (talk) 03:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent RS establish notability.Pincrete (talk) 14:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that Wright was named co-chair of the steering committee that oversaw the multidistrict litigation relating to the nationally publicized meningitis outbreak caused by the NECC is, in itself, notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.42.106.110 (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC) — Special:Contributions/72.42.106.110) 72.42.106.110 has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Notability is established by widespread coverage in independent RSs. Pincrete (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wright's role on the unsecured creditors' committee was a major impetus behind the article. He might not have been the committee spokesman, but he was one of fewer than 10 attorneys on the committee to vote on multi-million dollar settlements in the federal bankruptcy court, which I think qualifies him as making a significant contribution in the legal field. Adamr.p1s (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaken. To sit on a committee which handles a few million dollars is not defined as confering notability to anybody, under Wikipedia guidelines. He rather made a significant contribution of other people's money to some people's purses, not some contribution to the legal field. Kraxler (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the contribution is a legal one because the settlement compensates the hundreds of injured people filing suit against NECC, resolving the substantial litigation against the company. The settlement is also part of NECC's federal bankruptcy proceedings. These are legal events in the story of the meningitis outbreak. Adamr.p1s (talk) 19:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's routine, lawsuits like that are brought, decided, and settled every day. Kraxler (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The main author has made contributions mainly on this article and one about the subject's employer: Colling Gilbert Wright & Carter. I assume that page is candidate for removal too; it's a new, non notable (in my opinion) firm. To me, this type of content belongs on LinkedIn, not Wikipedia (At least in Norway, I have had entries deleted for companies that are 30+ years old and have made much more substantial contributions than what is displayed here, and also fierce discussions about removing entries about people that have frequently been covered in Norwegian national news). Finally, these articles about Wright and his employer seem to have many siblings in the "Florida law" field. Is there a bad habit of using Wikipedia as a kind of LinkedIn in Florida? Bjornte (talk) 12:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

e-Sword

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/e-Sword (4th nomination)

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

This is nom #4 as #2 was named "second nomination" and the 3rd was "2nd nomination", so... There is a lot of excessive, likely WP:COI-based fluff around this article. Many "reviews" point to non-notable, non-reliable, or in some cases now non-existent sources. About.com is user-driven content, so that's out. The only saving grace for a source here was a listing in Publisher's Weekly (which no longer exists), but in the last AfD an editor raised a point that e-Sword was only mentioned in passing and this was never refuted. This article is really purely promotional and does not meet the project's notability guidelines. Tarc (talk) 17:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being rated top on About.com (<– internal link to Wikipedia article) is a pretty high accolade. For "now non-existent sources" please add {{dead link}} tags, and I will retrieve archived pages where possible. I agree that the article has a promotional tone and needs further trimming, but IMHO the topic is encyclopaedic, sufficiently notable, and worth keeping not least to distinguish the subject from the SWORD Project. (Nothing to disclose: I have no personal interest in the software, not even as a user.) – Fayenatic London 11:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User-generated content, which is what about.com is, is not a valid source to use when determining notability of a topic. Tarc (talk) 13:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is your authority for classifying the entire site as user generated? Much of it, including this page, appears to be of journalistic quality. – Fayenatic London 15:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because...that is what about.com, um, is? The writers are not experts, the submissions are not peer-reviewed, it is just ordinary people that submit content, much like the Wikipedia. It is in the same category as IMDB, which we do not accept as a reliable source either. Mary Fairchild, a "Christianity expert" who includes the software on a Top 10 list is not an indicator of notability. Tarc (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NPRODUCT: non-notable, no sources found. One author's opinion on something does not contribute to notability. Esquivalience ^t 01:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not made by a company or organization; so the [WP:NPRODUCT]] argument is not valid. Katoog (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Searches showed no in-depth coverage of this software showing its notability. The most interesting was the google books search, where there were several mentions, which show that this software is being used. But those citations did not rise to the level of meeting the notability criteria. 25 million downloads is nothing to sneeze at, but that figure is not from an independent source. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. e-Sword and his modules are supported by many Churches and it is about BIBLE-software; downloaded 25 million times across 230 nations.

That's a form of WP:VALUABLE. The project does not retain articles on software just because people use it, so, "keep because lots of churches have it" is not a valid AfD rationale. Tarc (talk) 12:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
supported is not the same as usefull: we are not talking about tools for the garden but about the Bible and study material used for evangelization and education.Katoog (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arlan Huang

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

Big article promoting not-yet-notable artist. It's hard to find non-trivial third-part references talking about him. damiens.rf 15:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Everett Button

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

Non-notable person, fails WP:BIO based on self-published sources/PR, too soon on acting, non-notable band, a single article does not a writer make, etc. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I requested speedy deletion, since there's no reasonable claim to notability. 2601:188:0:ABE6:18BA:9D03:B907:ADF2 (talk) 02:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Speedy deletion should be appropriate. There's nothing notable here, and this looks like a resume. --Cagepanes (talk) 03:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried, and was unable to find any RS to support notability. It may be a case of WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. News and Newspapers sources return only a single press release. Current article only cited by primary or promotional references. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Events at the 2022 Winter Olympics

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/2022 Winter Olympics events

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

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

WP:CRYSTAL. Literally all we can actually say about these events at this point, seven years short, is "Event is a thing that will happen, the end" — with just two exceptions for, curiously, the exact same two sports, we don't even have articles in place for the individual events at the 2018 Winter Olympics yet — so I'm really struggling to think of a single remotely compelling reason why 2022's individual event subpages would already need to start existing now. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in 2021 when there's (a) actually something substantive to actually say about them, and (b) more than just the host city's own Olympics bid book (a primary source) for "referencing". Bearcat (talk) 01:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. I saw these the other day and thought about bringing them to AfD. I think the earliest these could have any meaningful content is on the conclusion of the 2018 events, where we could mention the defending champion, and that's about it. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TOOSOON shoy (reactions) 19:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON....William 13:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I disagree with your statement about 2021 because Olympic hockey is organized in such a way that most of the qualification process for the 2022 Olympic tournament will happen in 2019. Therefore the article should be recreated in 2019 at the latest. I also disagree with your statement that there are only primary sources. The election of Beijing last month has been covered by all kinds of media, including the hockey venues and schedule. I also think you should have notified the creator. Hektor (talk) 13:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nominator's rationale. We may reasonably debate whether we should keep the main articles for the next two scheduled Olympics (2016 and 2020 summer, and 2018 and 2022 winter), but the idea that we should be creating articles for the individual events at the 2022 Olympiad seven years in advance is a classic case of WP:TOOSOON and a violation of the spirit, if not the letter of WP:CRYSTAL. The hockey article can be recreated in 2019, when the qualification process begins for the 2022 Olympic hockey event (or sometime thereafter). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In August of 2012, another editor created Speed skating at the 2018 Winter Olympics which was nearly as premature as these articles. While this is a long lead-in for a future event, it is a notable event; it is an event that will most likely happen on schedule; and it is one that will be the subject of periodic news reports for the next several years. Meanwhile, the fact that the 2018 article was created about three years ago hasn't caused the servers to fill up, hasn't caused Wikipedia to crash, and has't hurt anything at all. Give these articles a chance to fill out -- even if they remain as stubs for the next several years, they will be expanded upon as the event nears. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 09:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is way WP:TOOSOON. Deadman137 (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 21:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sirish Hospital

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

Unable to find any significant coverage of this hospital in independent, reliable sources. Only found run-of-the mill listings -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 14:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find not substantial point in favour of keeping this. Dr. Dinesh Karia^{(Talk) (contribs)} — Preceding undated comment added 13:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Christian Medical College, Ludhiana which has a facility at this hospital, see CMCH city centre opens and City centre of CMC completes a year of it's functioning Kraxler (talk) 01:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 21:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SSA & Company

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

No evidence of notability. The article is sourced to several dead links, promotional pages, business announcements, etc, without a single verifiable reference to substantial coverage in a reliable independent source. One or two of the references, while related to the topic of "six sigma", do not actually mention this business at all. The article is also somewhat promotional. (A PROD was removed without any explanation, by an editor using an IP address with no other edits.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. Most of the current links are dead, and the other deal more with the concept of Six Sigma than with this company. A google news search resulted in very limited coverage, a couple of slight mentions, but mostly press releases. A newspapers search produced zero results. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as of all my searches, the best I found was one mention. SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1984 Better Brakes AMSCAR Series

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

fails WP:GNG and not notable as a sporting event. Found no in-depth coverage, I thought a plausible redirect would be AMSCAR Series but that is merely a redirect to the race location. If the series is not notable in its own right, then a one off version isn't either. Also nominating:

1983 Better Brakes AMSCAR Series LibStar (talk) 10:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a tough one. I agree with LibStar that you can't merge with the redirect. And the article that the redirect points to is about the park. Now the article about the park is more than 50% about the races held there. What probably needs to happen is that a separate article about the park's races needs to be created, and then this added to it. Clearly, there is not enough coverage to warrant separate articles about each season. Another problem is that the information in this article, and the information about the racing in the article about the park do not align. But at present, I would either create a new overall article about racing at the park, and move all racing info there, or simply delete this (and the other article mentioned by the nom). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Reflection Tour. Article history is preserved, so somebody can merge the content back in if desired. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reflection: The Summer Tour

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

Article completely fails WP:NCONCERT, and has been previously redirected due to plagiarism from a related article. IPadPerson (talk) 23:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Reflection Tour — The article appears to duplicate some of the information already available at the The Reflection Tour article, such as the table of dates. Appears to fall under WP:CONTENTFORK. Mz7 (talk) 02:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 21:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo M82

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

Article topic is not the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. I'd be fine with a redirect, but @Hahnchen thought the redirect to List of Nintendo Entertainment System accessories was "half-assed". Have fun finding sources. Please {{ping}} me if you offline and non-English refs. – czar 00:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - lack of sources, all content is in respect to the parent article. Sergecross73 msg me 01:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems notable even without that many references. With a quick google search, it seems as though it might be a rare, collectors item. Ana r chyte 12:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Anarchyte, Wikipedia:But there must be sources! is an argument to avoid—either sources exist (and we can write an article) or they don't (and we can't). What did you find? – czar 16:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a highly specialized console unit and it's not surprising it doesn't have significant, reliable, in-depth, lasting (non-collector's viewpoint) coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. There are may be a couple sentences to write in the parent article from the two sources, especially since it implies there were other unit variations. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore (musician)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Only reference is home page. ubiquity (talk) 16:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim to notability in the article, just another musician, "sources" are Twitter, Facebbok, Instagram, and Youtube, article is a huge WP:FANCRUFT monster Kraxler (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AutoX

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

Fails WP:CORP. This article is based on press releases and the subject's own website. Lacks sustained, in-depth coverage from quality independent sources. Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promo advert of just another auto magazine, no in-depth coverage in independent sources Kraxler (talk) 14:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and Kraxler's comments. No significant coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, unfortunately, as my searches found nothing even in the least good aside from this and this. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ellwood Epps

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

WP:BLP of a musician which makes no substantive claim of notability, is written suspiciously like a prosified résumé, and cites not a whit of reliable source coverage. Article was listed for BLP prod, which the creator attempted to forestall by adding a single reference to a Blogspot blog (which is not a reliable source), so unfortunately it has to come to AFD this time. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After a good faith search for sources, I conclude that he fails our notability guideline for musicians. He exists and plays trumpet but is not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Jstor, Highbeam, and google scholar produced no hits. A regular google search, and a google newspapers search produced quite a few hits, but none seem to be about this individual. On Google News there were some minor mentions of this individual from a small local paper in Hamilton.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My searches found nothing better aside from some news links here. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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