Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 July	7 July >

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nightstick (film)

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

The article is unsourced and it fails WP:NF. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The cast alone means that it meets WP:NF. The nom should take a look at WP:BEFORE. MarnetteD|Talk 23:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It seems to have the alternate title Calhoun. It got reviewed by Variety, as in this snippet view. It also appears to have some degree of coverage in this book, and this brief production note seems to be about it. It's very difficult to even find a trivial mention about it, though. I guess you could make the argument that the Google Books results lead one to believe there's offline coverage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: MarnetteD should take a look at WP:NF before making recommendations about guidelines to others. The only part of that guideline referencing cast states "The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career." An ephemeral and award- and significant coverage-free TV movie doesn't cut it. Nha Trang ^Allons! 22:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know WP:NF inside and out. I mentioned the cast as only one reason that the article met the criteria. As shown by NRP there is coverage in at least one other source. BTW since it aired on a commercial network it wasn't "free" MarnetteD|Talk 22:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MarnetteD|Talk 22:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MarnetteD|Talk 22:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Marnette is indeed correct. Meets GNG for films with a notable cast.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in looking beyond the article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep per meeting WP:NF through available sources. I note that a topic's notability is dependent upon sources being available and NOT upon their ever being used. THAT's a matter for regular editing, and it does not improve the project to delete simply because a topic article might start out looking poor. We fix. WP:WIP, WP:IMPERFECT. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No compliance with WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) GSS (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blade in Hong Kong

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

The article is unsourced and it fails WP:NF. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 23:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nothing special but it doesn't have to be. Andrew D. (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tons of hits in google books.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) GSS (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reckless Disregard

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

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

The article is unsourced and it fails WP:NF. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 23:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ Keep (see below) - mainly because there's basically nothing here. It's a stub that says "this exists [according to imdb]". I found a couple sources, but only one is really good: this writeup in the LA Times. Other than that there are plenty of the yearly movie guides which give brief synopses of movies released that year (from e.g. Blockbuster), this paragraph in People, and that's about it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I did some digging and found some coverage for the film, as well as a review from the NYT. The People paragraph is short, but I used that more to reference one of the two lawsuits that seemed to serve as inspiration for the piece. Rhododendrites, what do you think? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Tokyogirl79: Ah. The NYT source is a big addition. Updated to keep based on that, but at least equally as much based on your improvements. To me, a stub that says "this exists [according to imdb]" is the same or worse than having no article. No reliable sources whatsoever, no claim to notability, no information aside from its existence -- just an impoverished mirror of Imdb. With no reliable sources and no substance, there's nothing to WP:PRESERVE, and nothing to be lost. People may say "so improve it", but while that's a reasonable response to 99.5% of "current version" arguments at AfD, if there's not actually anything of substance to work with, it's not just "improving" -- it's "actually creating the article". If I sound frustrated that it's not being deleted, know that that isn't the case. Having a real article about a notable subject is better than having no article or a non-article, so kudos to you for doing so, just as kudos would be in order for creating an article from scratch. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nah, I totally understand. I've had times where I had the same frustration and wanted to just throw my hands up and walk away. Heck, there have been a few times where I have, although I try not to do that with AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:NF. Once again Tokyogirl79 shows the value of WP:BEFORE and WP:IMPROVE prior to offering an opinion. Being weak is not a valid reason to delete an improvable topic. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG, plenty of independent, reliable coverage. For example, this film has been covered by LA times and the New York Times. Omni Flames (talk) 04:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 19:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rishabh Shanbhag

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alert! Rishabh Shanbhag may be canvasing for meat-puppets.

See https://twitter.com/iMast777/status/751288769605545986 (Cache ; Cache, as Image )

Delete/Keep/Comment Section of this AfD

Comment: Plenty of refs, but none that actually suggests notability Maproom (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Rishabh Shanbhag looks to be part of a very narrow subculture, which has earned him one interview & mention in one single article in the tech section of online Forbes. (see below section "Research, Information, Observations & Notes"). RQ (talk) 01:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obvious self-promoter is obvious, never mind that all these fatuous claims were made about a subject who was seventeen when the article was created. I'm thinking all those cites are less by way of the editors inserting them being lazy, and more that they were counting (accurately enough) on the average Wikipedian glancing at the article, saying "Ooo, lots of cites!" and never bothering to follow any of them up. (While we're talking about lazy.) Nha Trang ^Allons! 22:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hey there! I personally feel that this page should stay as it is. Before we start, there are a few points that I want to clarify. Kindly have a look at my research and points further below User:Synterest (talk) 08:51 AM, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Delete: as nominator. I see nothing the above discussion, or in the article itself, to change my view. Maproom (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable internet personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as examining this still found nothing actually convincing, delete by all means as there's nothing to suggest better at all. SwisterTwister talk 22:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Research, Information, Observations & Notes - by RQ (talk) 01:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The most/only "prominent" thing I could find on this Rishabh Shanbhag, was an article written by a "Contributor" (Antony Leather) in Forbes:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/antonyleather/2015/05/08/iphone-hacking-behind-the-scenes-with-an-ios-jailbreaker/print/

Everything else I could find about Rishabh Shanbhag is from his own, or his collaborators, hand.

His previous website: http://imast777.me/ is empty.
But used to be a thin content spammy commerce thing,
- Google still got some pages cached, via search [ site:imast777.me ]

His current website: https://rishabhshanbhag.com is just a single profile & contact page.
Though Google also got +20 indexed Lorem Ipsum pages [ site:rishabhshanbhag.com ]~~, which was there for about 2 years.~~ (striken, because while the Lorem Ipsum pages has indeed been hosted on that specific domain, then that specific domain didn't exist in 2014)

He's is only 19 years old (DoB = 19.Nov.1996), but still: I would have expected someone attempting to claim fame for developing software or websites, to have a bit more juice to their website. And he does (on his one page website) claim to be "an award-winning web developer and entrepreneur who has worked on various websites, packages and ...".
No actual award(s) are mentioned or referenced, and looking into the "frequently cited by publications" then it looks like lazy half-arsed journalists & bloggers doing twitter rehashing or straight twitter embedding. (The already first mentioned & referenced Forbes thing, being the only exception).

The Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rishabh_Shanbhag
Has a remarkable edit history: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rishabh_Shanbhag&action=history
It has really only ever been handled by 2 editors:

Jilkoms : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jilkoms
Who only got to edit on Wikipedia for less than a month, before being shut down for "Massive sockpuppetry" in 2014.
Synterest : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Synterest
Who's been editing nothing else but the "Rishabh Shanbhag" article, and only after Jilkoms was shut down.

RQ (talk) 01:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Research - by User:Synterest (talk) 08:51 AM, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

1) iOS jailbreaking in no way is a "narrow" subculture. The main app, Cydia, the creator of Cydia saurik, and other developers/hackers in the iPhone community such as geohot still have their pages (even though many have contested for deletion - as you can see in the talk pages especially that of geohot).

2) I have no connection with the user you have stated. I simply fell upon this page on iMast77's aka. Rishabh's Twitter

His previous website: http://imast777.me was an e-commerce store for users to purchase iPhone unlocks, aka. reversing a SIM lock, which is currently down (most likely up for a revamp) - has been down since he bought his new domain. His current site is https://rishabhshanbhag.com, I myself am not sure how those "Lorem ipsum" pages are there as he only added the domain recently to his social media pages and doing a quick WHOIS, I found out that "Creation Date: 23-jun-2016"^[1], so it's most likely that Google hasn't de-indexed the previous owner's pages.

I also see that you've added a "not in citation given" for the packages mentioned in the article.

Let us start with the first one - ActiSearch which has been referenced here on iDownloadBlog^[2] and DailyiPhoneBlog ^[3]. Now these 2 references have been already added to the Wikipedia article. But after doing a quick search myself, I found that ActiSearch has been also featured on AppAdvice ^[4] which is a verified source for tech news (also verified on Twitter^[5]. I also found that it has been featured on iPhoneHacks ^[6], iJailbreak ^[7], iPhoneCaptain ^[8], Best Cydia Tweaks ^[9], iSpazio (this is an italian website) ^[10], Apple Spot (Dutch website) ^[11], Info iDevice (French) ^[12], Apple Team (Greek) ^[13] etc. just to name a few.

Some articles don't mention the creator, but every package made which has been uploaded to Cydia, can be found using the package identifier (which in this case is com.imast777.actisearch). Using this, we can find out that "iMast777" is the creator or author of this package. You can use this link and look under the author section: http://cydia.online/package/com.imast777.actisearch

You can make use of this link - http://planet-iphones.com/cydia/author/iMast777, to find out all the other packages which he has created.

The second package which I've mentioned on the page is NoNewApp, you can blame me for this one because I didn't mention any references for this. Sorry, my bad. Googling it, you can find out that it has been featured on iDownloadBlog ^[14], AppAdvice^[15], Modmyi^[16], iPhone Italia ^[17], Appleophile France ^[18] etc. to name a few

The third package needing citation in the article was iDebstore - only one reference was added i.e. But it has also been featured on other websites such as Jaxov^[19], RedmondPie^[20], MacGenesis ^[21], VeryRite ^[22], TheHowMade ^[23],Tesux ^[24], iPhoneItalia ^[25], ValueWalk ^[26], iCulture (Dutch) ^[27] etc.

iDebStore was in beta phase when it was released in 2012 but is currently no longer active in 2016, the idebstore webite currently redirects to iMast777's Twitter now.

Those seem to be the only issues regarding packages. Also, he created most of these packages in 2012, back when he was only 16. So I doubt age should be any concern here.

Now for the frequently cited part in the end, the journalists embedded his tweets in those articles & they seemed to be verified sources to me such as CBS News, Complex (magazine) etc hence why I added that to the article since most people in the iOS/Apple/iPhone community take him & his tweets regarding tech very seriously.

Whereas the International Business Times article ^[28] clearly states this:

However, that seems to be passé as iOS, Windows developer and security researcher iMast777 has figured out a way that allows developers to test jailbreak apps and tweaks on iOS 6.1.1 beta 1. The method, explained below, helps developers jailbreak their devices running on the very first beta of iOS 6.1.1. which had picked up a method from a blog post from http://iMast777.me (back when it was up) which would allow developers to successfully jailbreak iOS - [[[iOS Jailbreaking]].

I'm honestly not sure how you did your research. If you searched for "Rishabh Shanbhag" then you didn't do it the right way, the very first paragraph in the Wikipedia article states that he is better known by his online alias "iMast777" and his creations. I hope you look into all of this & kindly re-consider. Thanks you.

User:Synterest (talk) 08:51 AM, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Response - to User:Synterest from RQ (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since no question ever existed about Rishabh Shanbhag's being owner of rishabhshanbhag.com, then a WhoIs lookup seemed a venue of pointlessness, and I therefore initially didn't do it (a WhoIs lookup is still pointless in terms of establishing noteworthiness, since any idiot can register a domain).

That Google has Lorem Ipsum pages indexed for that site, is because Google crawled the site, and found those pages.

That Google got some of them dated to 2014, is because Google read them to be so. Look at this screenshot, taken from Google's cache, which clearly tell the tale of site claiming to be at least from 2014 (much older that the domain it's served under). Or this screenshot, also taken from Google's cache, which clearly tells Google that the page is from "NOVEMBER 19, 2015".

Why did Rishabh Shanbhag allow the indexing of those Lorem Ipsum pages(?)

There are only one of two fundamental reasons for that to happen.

A. He didn't care a flying fuck if the Lorem Ipsum pages got indexed or not.

B. He couldn't handle the technical requirements for it not to happen.

Considering how hard he seem to want to claim fame for web development, then reason A seems unlikely, because: If you intended to care about your reputation as a web developer, then you do care about NOT clearing your old site, and open a new site to the entire world, before it has reached a minimum level of maturity.

If it's reason B, then that goes to show that his knowledge within the field of web mastering is at kn00b level. It's really easy to avoid getting indexed by well behaved search engines, implying e.g. Google, Bing, Yandex, ...

I took a quick tour down your references list, namely

2. http://www.idownloadblog.com/2012/11/19/actisearch/

3. http://dailyiphoneblog.com/2012/11/20/cydia-tweak-review-actisearch/

4. http://appadvice.com/appnn/2012/11/actisearch-jailbreak-tweak-search-numerous-sources-using-an-activator-action

5. https://twitter.com/AppAdvice

And that's were I stopped, because not a single one of those mentions "iMast777" or "Rishabh Shanbhag".

- and since when did something posted on Twitter get to be treated as reliable & noteworthy sourcing(?!?).

I think you're confusing notability of software, with notability of the programmers who made it.

Incidentally, I found the International Business Times article, which you've cut & paste a quote from, rather amusing for two reasons:

- Calling iMast777 for a "Windows developer and security researcher" doesn't really testify to great journalism (Windows development is not a testimony to iOS skills)

- International Business Times didn't actually do much (or any) real journalist work; they admit so themselves in the article end line "[Source: iMast777 via Redmond Pie]" (and Redmond Pie doesn't even have a Wikipedia article about them.)

You say: "I have no connection with the user you have stated. I simply fell upon this page on iMast77's aka. Rishabh's Twitter"

So, you simply fell on the "Rishabh Shanbhag" Wikipedia page thanks to a tweet by Rishabh Shanbhag (iMast777, and then started to take care of the page on 6.Nov.2014, and have done so ever since, as the only thing you do and have ever have done on Wikipedia, in immediate succession of the banned user Jilkoms. (I still smell the stench of WP:COI, and even stronger when seeing the cleaner being used, but not to where the stench comes from.)

RQ (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, nomination withdrawn and no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 19:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Smite World Championship 2016

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

I'm not sure about the notability of this tournament. Among the sources, the Fox Sports one is significant coverage but I'm more iffy about the PC gamer one. I don't know if Kotaku is considered a reliable source for notability purposes. It's also kind of strange that Smite World Championship remains a red link while this year is not. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are reliable sources covering this event, as you just mentioned. I just created the Smite World Championship page after seeing the AfD, just for disclosure.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- PC Gamer is considered a reliable source at WP:VGRS--Prisencolin (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant WP:RS coverage per above. Smartyllama (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Smite World Championship and expand. I'm not sure if the individual years are warranted at this point, as though the prize pools are considerable, the coverage isn't comparable to the Dota or League of Legends championships, which do warrant individual articles... but only after several years of tournaments and major coverage. At this point for Smite, however? I don't see it. However, I do stress that the general World Championships article has potential, so let's put the materials there are expand that. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 20:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a bad idea. I'm not going to change my vote but I might vote to merge if that discussion is ever opened.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I can live with that. However, mergers aren't for AFD discussions so I guess I'll withdraw my deletion proposal and we can further discuss whether to just put the separate years into the main article is and until there's enough that's worth spinning off. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 19:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Cassandra

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

No evidence of notability. Ja.Wiki article is no better, no mentions on ANN or Comic Natalie. Aside from technical/guideline edits all the content was added by a single user who only ever edited that page and only made 2 days worth of edits to it. I assume they lost interest and it's unlikely to be improved. SephyTheThird (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --SephyTheThird (talk) 21:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Find one article in Italian that discusses the series. [1] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The manga does exist in MADB but it does not look promising for secondary reliable sources analyzing the series, not meeting WP:BKCRIT AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:03, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still nothing minimally suggesting better substance for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 22:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Han Chiang High School. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 07:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Han Chiang Indoor Stadium

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

Fails GNG Kharkiv07 (T) 21:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Han Chiang High School This stadium is locally notable, but there is not enough material to have an article about it. It is also part of the Han Chiang High School, so redirecting it to the school article is best. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Redirect as being only locally known is still not enough to suggestive keeping it if there's still overall questionability as its own article. SwisterTwister talk 22:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 19:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Genson! Kodai Seibutsu-shi Packy

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

Short run in Jump, only long enough for two volumes. ANN has no mention of it, Ja.Wiki article has no additional information or sources and the 3 mentions on Comic Natalie are all for the series announcement, start and end dates.

The article has been tagged for notability since it was created in Feb 2012, I think it's had more than enough time to improve and show notability. SephyTheThird (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --SephyTheThird (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a handful or two of mentions in news articles, but not enough to meet WP:BKCRIT AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still nothing at all actually suggestive of its own substantial independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ghallu

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

The subject doesn't seem to meet notability requirements. The article has existed for a while now but it never seemed to be sufficiently sourced. It's currently completely unsourced and the only source ever cited was a glossary, which is not significant coverage. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 14:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 21:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Heck, never mind this being an unsourced sub-sub-stub, I'm advocating a G7 for failure to assert a claim of notability. When the entire text of the article is "The Ghallu are a tribe of Pakistan," what does this assert, exactly? Nha Trang ^Allons! 22:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This tribe existed, but I'm not sure it was a recognized or notable caste. I found this study, which implies they are a notable if small group. Bearian (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:GNG - Article has changed alot over time. Had 1 source that was insufficient on its own. No other reliable sources. As such it fails WP:GNG. -- Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources: There is, or, at least, was in 1858 a village in the Sindh called Ghallu (an old book popped up when I searched on Sindh + Ghallu. There are contemporary individuals in Pakistan with Ghallu as a surname. And Bearian's study establishes that a group of genetics researchers found a group calling itself Ghallu in the Sindh. This, however, is all. And All that it establishes is that such a group of people exists, quite probably as a clan of some sort, but nothing indicates that this group of people is notable. Merely we see indications that it exists. Delete as non-notable group.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing minimally convincing, nothing at all actually suggesting better. SwisterTwister talk 22:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 19:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glasses Direct

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

It's time for another AfD because the listed sources in 2013 still are not the substantial and significant coverage needed, it's also still questionable for independent notability. My PROD:"None of the listed sources suggest the needed substantial significant coverage and my own searches have found only trivial links, including searches at major British news sources.". SwisterTwister talk 21:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only does it not meet WP:CORP but there are some potentially libelous statements such as: " Murray Wells accused Perkins of rigging the election." Also, the sentences that start "I is important to reiterate..." and "I quote" are indicative that this article does not adhere to NPOV and may even be a bit of a hit piece. LaMona (talk) 02:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - blatantly contravenes WP:NPOV and also fails WP:CORP. Tom29739 ^[talk] 22:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 19:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Montree Promsawat

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 08:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 08:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 08:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTY. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 08:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 06:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as still not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 22:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 23:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously failed GNG. — Music1201 ^talk 07:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 19:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seaman Kowalski

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

Not sufficiently notable on his own. Does not meet WP:GNG. ubiquity (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This character has no substantial mention on Google, outside of being listed as a character on VttBotS and of being played by the actor Del Monroe. He has only a single listing in the show's article. No sources are referenced. Language appears very subjective and better suited for a fan wiki. -Mindfrieze (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It fails to properly establish notability, so it has no need to exist in its current form. TTN (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A devoted, largely in-universe account of Seaman Kowalski on the old Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea TV series, to which I was positively addicted, as a kid. Entirely WP:OR, unreferenced, and not a notable enough fictional character even if we did have refs. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Brigands (band). It is agreed that the song does not have sufficient independent notability, but could be merged into The Brigands (band). (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 18:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Would I Still Be) Her Big Man

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

Irrelevant song which produced no noteworthy awards or chart positions. Band itself is hardly worth mention. Lack of reliable sources. Blog [2], [3] and a wiki [4]. Fails GNG. 173.52.99.208 (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I completed the nom for the IP. The previous AfD was closed mid-discussion as speedy keep because of an interaction ban, but it was trending towards a merge with The Brigands (band), which is what I would recommend. ansh 666 19:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging participants of previous AfD @Mo ainm, Dps04, Garagepunk66, TheGracefulSlick, Ghmyrtle, Ohnoitsjamie, and White Arabian Filly: your comments would be welcome. ansh 666 19:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Fails WP:NSONG and notability is not inherited and so would tend to go with merge with the band's articles. Mo ainm~Talk 20:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with The Brigands (band). Song has insufficient independent notability. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is the ban even notable? 173.52.99.208 (talk) 21:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you meant "band" then the answer is yes. The Brigands appear on the most well-known garage rock compilation of all time and get a write-up by the respected Richie Unterberger. If you have questions, I would check out the group's Afd from a month or two ago.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact that it's been anthologized on compilation albums unrelated to the band confers notability. Softlavender (talk) 07:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There has already been a consensus not to delete this article. It's inclusion on the Nuggets box set makes it automatically high profile in its genre, and respected rock critic Richie Unterberger has extolled the song's virtues as remarkable--for those reasons alone, this article should not be deleted. However, there have been a couple of constructive recommendations to merge this article with the one on the Brigands. While I still favor full-retention, a merger is an option I could consider. Deletion is totally unacceptable. Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but would also consider a merge. The IP nominator is in trouble over at ANI or maybe is already blocked for disruptive AfD filing. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of murdered American children

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

I'm not sure about this list. Does it actually contain an exhaustive list per WP:CSC? As noted, there's thousands of cases a year of murdered American children but only a few that are listed here. There exists Category:Murdered American children and the criteria seems at least to be that there must be an article and it must involve an American child who was murdered but is this really something that can be listified? Ricky81682 (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing a deletion argument. Before you answer, please read WP:NOTDUP and WP:LISTPURP. Of course the category can only include articles because that's how categories function, but editors can also restrict lists to only having entries that have or merit articles, and this is typical with lists of people. You've misread WP:CSC, which plainly states that "only certain types of list should be exhaustive." This is not one of them. postdlf (talk) 13:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per arguments by Postdlf. The category page is not as easy to navigate as the list due to the organization and the list puts the cases into chronological order and also gives quick descriptions of the cases not provided in the category page. Furthermore, yes, there are thousands of cases per year and not all of them are in the article because they are not notable. Only notable cases have been included.--GouramiWatcher^Talk 20:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - useful for our core readers, i.e. students. Bearian (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This would be a good redirect target for the plethora of articles abou entirely unremarkable murders.TheLongTone (talk) 11:12, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reason for this article to exist with Category:Murdered American children already here. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTDUP. And even notwithstanding that guideline, that's a really poor argument given that the category obviously does not and cannot have an annotated, sortable table subdivided by decade. postdlf (talk) 23:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete tentatively, pending responses to the following, or Rename/Refocus - On one hand I guess there's an argument to be made for a navigational list of articles about American children who were murdered. However, looking through the list, that's not actually what this is. Although the bluelinks look like a bunch of articles about the murder victims, most of the links I've followed are actually redirects (or direct links) to articles about murderers (e.g. Johnny Keller redirects to William Williams (murderer), and Linda Edwards redirects to Zodiac Killer, where she is listed as a suspected victim), incidents (e.g. Martin William Richard redirects to Boston Marathon bombing), and other lists (e.g. Little Miss X redirects to List of unidentified murder victims in the United States). These sorts of redirects make sense given we typically don't have articles about people whose only claim to notability is as a victim, and have articles about killings, cases, etc. but as the article does not purport to be a list of murderers, murder cases, or murders, I find it to be a harder sell. The list could be radically reduced in line with the navigational purpose, only including articles about children themselves, or it could be renamed/refocused in some way. I think it's likely I'll wind up changing my !vote. It's based on the sense that improving along the lines I'm talking about would be unlikely to be possible if simply kept. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:20, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very useful for readers that wants to navigate to a particular article. Good for students etc.BabbaQ (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of formerly unidentified decedents

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

I know that this is a listification attempt going along with this CFD but is this really an appropriate stand-alone list? I don't see the required selection criteria under WP:CSC here. Literally every police department has a morgue full of people who were "formerly unidentified" and then later identified so this list would literally be in the millions. It seems to be a list of notable formerly unidentified decedents but only if the person isn't immediately identified I imagine. As noted in the CFD discussion, technically Richard III of England falls under a 1485 death and 2013 identification here which tells you this list is problematic. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Author Pedantically every death is unidentified until that body is formally identified. The list is intended for those bodies which take a significant time to be identified. I find the topic interesting (which is not the same as notable) and consider the list to be useful. Richard III of England is a red herring. When he died he was not unidentified and is therefore outside the scope of this list. His body was lost and belongs in a different list (if there is one). Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- So it's only when the person is identified and determined to not be notable that it matters? If a notable person died, then their identification is irrelevant? It feels very much like it's going to be personal opinion as to what falls as I presume notable identifications as opposed to a notable person being identified rather than some neutral standard. If the body was identified in 2013 but not Richard III but from the 1800s or from the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier for the Revolutionary War, does that merit inclusion or not? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I wonder if renaming the article might make the intended scope clearer. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs expansion, of course, but it won't be too difficult. As long as it's reserved for more notable cases and for those that remained long-term unidentified decedents or those that garnered a reasonable amount of publicity while unidentified (i.e. Riley Sawyers).--GouramiWatcher^Talk 19:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I don't think expansion is necessarily what this needs. What it needs is a clearer inclusion criteria, and it seems like it would be possible to do so such that (a) the entries are themselves notable, and (b) it's limited to those people for which the identification of their bodies received some amount of coverage. Right now there's an embedded list at Unidentified decedent. This article shows it could be expanded to such an extent that spinning it out would make sense anyway. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Potentially a useful list and a notable subject, but I notice there are no sources. Dimadick (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For this to be kept, we need to show that it passes WP:LISTN. Are all such unidentified bodies discussed as a set? I would actually buy likely notability for all unidentified bodies within a city, since regional or even national media are likely to discuss past unidentified bodies in articles discussing a recently identified one. But do any publications actually discuss all unidentified bodies everywhere as a set? I'm leaning delete unless someone can demonstrate such coverage. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We need an easy way for people to find UID's that have an article on the en-wikipedia without a cumbersome search. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 18:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) My Pants Metal (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry's Artarama

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

Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:ORG criteria. No significant coverage. My Pants Metal (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - A very old organization with lots of news coverage found on google news search. Moreover the creator of the article has expanded the article and added some RS after the article has been nominated for deletion. @My Pants Metal: Please search on google news before nominating any article for deletion.- Mar11 (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thing is, I did search Google news and nothing notable came up. All I saw was it being briefly mentioned on NorwalkPlus.com as well as student's artwork being displayed in the entrance. I didn't see any significant coverage when I first searched. I see now that the article has additional sources and it does meet WP:ORG so I do stand corrected. I withdraw my nomination. --My Pants Metal (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I am not convinced by any argument below that the page should be moved to draft space. J04n(talk page) 19:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Mohi-ud-Din Qadri

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

Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri is a notable scholar of Islam, but the fact that he has named his son as his successor within MQI does not YET mean that the son is notable at all. Before I removed all the non-neutral sources and peacocking and puffery, the current article was a frivolous piece of fan-club-style nonsense about him being great, a famous humanitarian, terrific scholar etc. A Google search simply does not show this. Sorry Minhaj-ul-Quran members and fans, but he is simply not yet notable. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not yet there. Far WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as there's nothing minimally convincing for his own notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not actually achieved anything of note according even according to sources. Indeed LinkedIn, blogs, and Twatter seem to be the only mentions he gets. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The scholar is notable. Visit all the associated websites and find results on Google or Bing as well. Find him here on Google search User:Mohd Sarim Ashrafi Mohd Sarim Ashrafi (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 15:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for proving my point. _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as he meets neither the general notability guideline nor the notability guideline for academics. The article was recently reverted to the old promotional version, but that has been rectified. --bonadea contributions talk 16:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am expanding this with independent sources. --Fadesga (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the consensus is that notability has not been demonstrated, could the article be moved to draft space or a user sandbox so interested editors can keep working on it? GoingBatty (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Move to draft space~~. Does the article, in its current condition, justify staying in mainspace? No. Is there potential that the article might meet GNG or other notability guidelines? Yes. As a result, the best outcome is to incubate the article in draft space and give more time for sources to be found and a neutral article to be written. If it stagnates there, then it can be cleaned out later with G13. —C.Fred (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since the nominator now feels the article is sufficiently sourced. I now feel the article should be retained—ideally in the main space, but if necessary, moved to Draft. —C.Fred (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear: I still think the subject is not notable. The article makes two claims, each of which is referenced with a third-party source, hence I removed the template about inline citations. Yet the two assertions do NOT establish notability. One merely establishes that the subject gained his PhD. So what? The other merely shows that he published one book chapter. This certainly has not made him a prolific or influential scholar. So my view remains unchanged. Qadri is not notable. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He really does not have any sources that show why he is currently notable, just ones that prove he did things like get his PhD or spoke once to the House of Commons, neither of which demonstrate any lasting notability. No prejudice to recreate once the subject becomes sufficiently notable and has proper sources to show this, but its WP:Too Soon.64.183.45.226 (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Levant

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

Following request in this post from User:Corriebertus. The article as it stands consists solely of the archaeological history for a poorly defined region which has many other overlapping articles such as Palestine (region), Land of Israel, Southern Syria, and Canaan. All of the content is already in either of those articles or else in History of Palestine or in History of Israel or in Prehistory of the Levant, which are characterized in the relevant section as being the "main articles" for this topic. Also, many of the sources which refer to southern Levant, do so with a lower case s. A merge into Levant would be one option worth considering. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC) [ Please be noted that I consider this not to be my (complete) motivation: see my posting below, 7Jul10:10. Corriebertus. ][reply]

Keep article is well sourced and the claim that it should be part of the larger Levant article doesn't mean that because the southern part has more archaeological activity should not have its own article. Everything in this article is sourced, notable and verified. Even if we discount the whole being of a Southern Levant, it is notable enough and large enough to have its own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Joseph (talk • contribs) 17:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Even acknowledging the (absurd) "lowercase s" dispute, this is clearly a notable term. It is the standard way of referring to the region consisting of modern-day Israel, Jordan and Palestine in archaeology, history and environmental science, as evidenced by several thousand Google Scholar hits. I agree that the content of the article at the moment is arguably redundant―this entire topic area is full of duplication—but is that really a discussion for AfD? (Not a rhetorical question; I honestly don't know.) Joe Roe (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Commonly used name, standard neutral name for the region in academia. Also per the above editor who has a Masters in Archaeology. Drsmoo (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just as Drsmoo states, it is a term in very common use, and it is not interchangeable with Palestine (region), Land of Israel, Southern Syria, Canaan - making it hard to redirect. We really do need to make it easy for peple running into a term like this to quickly find out where the Southern Levant is. This page does that very well.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per E.M.Gregory. Debresser (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - there's just not much material here, and it seems a minorly used term rather than a separate topic. The whole History section can/should be tossed since it is generic and not about the region. Just put the top para definition into [Prehistory of the Levant], plus steal the categories and see also bits, there's nothing else of value here. Markbassett (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As has been mentioned above, the term is commonly used in academia in order to be neutral. There is enough information on the region, especially its archaeology, to warrant a stand-alone article. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but specify its usage and users in the first sentence for readers unfamiliar with the term per WP:BEGINNING. This can be done with "In archeology, ..."/"... is an archeological region ..." etc. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 10:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (after its content having been merged already) - Just to inform you that my motivation is not (anymore) (only) the motivation as it is written in the top of this section. Today I've elaborated on a better, clearer, more complete motivation for deletion, which you can read now in section Talk:Southern Levant#Delete the article altogether. Actually, I've this morning already merged all content of Southern Levant into Levant#History.
I notice Drsmoo,Gregory,Debresser,McClenon contending that ‘Southern Levant’ is a commonly used name. But one of my main arguments is that the definition of SouthLev in the article is based on only ONE source, which I’d consider insufficient to justify the existence of the article. If the name is indeed commonly used as you claim, then show and prove that by giving several more sources of its definition in the article.
If there's a specific reason to designate a sub-region 'Southern Levant' -- and of course there must be a reason to do so -- then I'd expect to read that reason, both in the article Southern Levant and in article Levant.
@Sir Joseph claims(6Jul) the article to be “large enough” etc. Strange: the article is rather short, and consists only of summaries of three main articles. Summaries can be made as long or short as anyone decides; these summaries should in the first place be located though in article Levant where they are lacking as yet. And if they’re introduced there, as they ought to be, there’s probably no need to have them ‘doubled’ in a separate article as in article Southern Levant today.
SJoseph also claims that while the southern part has more archaeological activity, that archeol. activity should have its own (= separate) article. No: that would become logically necessary only when Levant#History or Levant#Archaeology (which does not even exist as yet) would get too large.
Ofcourse we all agree that the offered information is notable (as SJ states), but we don’t discard of that information. It remains in the mentioned main articles, which will be referred to from article Levant. --Corriebertus (talk) 10:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The content issues that have been raised don't justify deletion. The only valid argument for deletion presented here seems to be that the term isn't notable, but per my comment above it clearly is. Joe Roe (talk) 13:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

? - Joe Roe dismisses the "argument that the term isn't notable", but nobody has made that argument, I believe. (And he refers to "his comment above", but he has not yet contributed in this subsection.) --Corriebertus (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My comment is the second bullet in this section. I admit I'm having trouble understanding what policy-based rationale you and the nominator have for deleting this, but I was trying to WP:AGF and interpret your argument that the definition is only based on one source and that the article's existence is "not justified" as a point about notability, and not simply WP:IDL. Joe Roe (talk) 13:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(sorry) - Sorry, yes you were indeed in this section. The rest of your new posting I will read later, don't have time now. --Corriebertus (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe: the policy assertion is that this article is a WP:CONTENTFORK. The proposed counterarguments are contradictory - one unsubstantiated argument goes that Southern Levant denotes a differentiated geographical area than Palestine (region) or the Land of Israel, whilst another argument suggests that it is a term created in order to allow scholars to avoid using either of those terms. Clearly those two arguments are conflicting. The only notable subject that could be covered under this title which isn't already covered in multiple other articles is a description of the scholarly debate surrouding usage of the term Levant or Southern Levant. The rest is redundant. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As was pointed out, Southern Levant is by itself a highly notable subject in academia, with multiple scholarly papers published every day focusing on the region. Scholars do use Southern Levant as the neutral term for the area, however the Southern Levant contains the regions of Palestine, Israel, Jordan etc, it is not synonymous with them. Regarding Corriebertus post about HighBeam, Highbeam isn't a source, it's an archive of scholastic material, which would have been very apparent upon clicking the link. The source that was used via HighBeam was Antiquity (journal), which is an archaeology journal produced by Cambridge University, though there are thousands of other sources that could have been used instead. The idea that "the definition of SouthLev in the article is based on only ONE source, which I’d consider insufficient to justify the existence of the article" solely because a single source was provided, is puzzling (to say the least) Drsmoo (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I realise anecdotes don't carry much weight in an AfD, but just for the record: I use "Southern Levant" frequently in my own research, including in the title of my PhD thesis. It is not a synonym for Palestine or Israel, because neither of these regions unambigiously include Transjordan or the Negev, or for Syria-Palestine, which includes the Northern Levant. Maybe scholars working on later periods or Biblical archaeology find it useful that it avoids sensitive political issues, but in my field (prehistoric archaeology) the politics are neither here nor there; it's simply a precise, concise geographical term. There is no "scholarly debate" over its use. Joe Roe (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Like others, I feel like this is a notable term and that the article meets notability. I don't see a reason for this to be deleted, although merging may be a possibility if you wish to just have one article about the region. United States Man (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – and update Template:Ancient Syria and Mesopotamia accordingly. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rican American football league pyramid

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

No evidence of notability. DePRODded by original editor without comment. PamD 17:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:V. The burden is with the article creator to a) provide sourcing and b) ensures it meets some standards of notability. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This isn't an article, it's a table. Aside from anything else, fails WP:NOTIMAGE. Nha Trang ^Allons! 22:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not sure if any of the Puerto Rico American Football League articles are notable. They are orphans in relation to the greater Wikipedia. Fbdave (talk) 00:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AnimeRace

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

Not notable. There is no reliable source covering this game. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video games-related deletion discussions. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete. I can't find any evidence that this game exists. In fact, a Google search for "AnimeRace AnimeGameStudio" turns up only this article. That should set alarm bells ringing. If this is real, it's obviously nowhere near notable. Adam9007 (talk) 01:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all convincing. SwisterTwister talk 02:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable in the slightest (even if it does exist, which is doubtful). WP:SNOW. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above not notable and is not verifiable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 00:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Euphorics Id

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

No reliable sources used. Lack of significant coverage. No notability demonstrated. Use of personal websites as a reliable source. [5] Fails GNG. 173.52.99.208 (talk) 12:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC) nominated on behalf of the unregistered user at their request with no opinion on the AfD -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 13:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - First off, that is not a personal website it is an interview so that is a lie. The other sources are in-depth coverage so you ignored that. The fact new albums represent this pre-Internet band also contributes to their notability.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment This is the author of the article. How does this article pass GNG? Unreliable sources as per WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:RSSELF. 173.52.99.208 (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep Extensive coverage on album and recording of "Hey Joe". This version alone has appeared on five compilations including Pebbles, one of the most prominent album series. I've changed my views of 1960s bands after awhile and see their notability. I also would appreciate if this IP would return to their account, they aren't fooling anyone.ALongStay (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Making a cover of a song does not make them notable. I can make a cover of Thriller by Michael Jackson, but this won't make me notable. Any citation of "extensive coverage on album? Any sales indication? What makes this band notable? 173.52.99.208 (talk) 17:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP (or CA) where do you get off distinguishing what notability is? Dozens of your articles are deleted and I haven't seen one article you nominate be deleted. This is clearly to spite me but it won't work because all my articles will be kept...again.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for the comment. Seem to be a violation of WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL. Now this article simply isn't notable. It states on WP:NRV "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally." Where is the verifiable evidence? 173.52.99.208 (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? I won't take your bait anymore. I'll let the voters keep my article again. I have never met someone so dishonest with no remorse. It's depressing. I'm sorry you feel you have to do this.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I just noticed that this article is nominated for deletion, so I'm a little bit late to the discussion. There are several reasons for keeping. First of all, this band's work has appeared on several compilations--as a has been mentioned. Also, the interview that editors discussed was conducted by Mike Dugo, who is the leading interviewer of 60s garage rock bands--he is the head of 60s Garage Bands.com and his work is often included in Beyond the Beat Generation, which is a quality publication. He does painstaking and accurate work, and his sources can considered reliable. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:17, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Winston and the Commons

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

Reason for deletion - No reliable sources are used. Obscure and non-notable band. This is a blog [6] . This is a blog [7]. This is a wiki [8]. This does not seem to pass GNG [9] This does not pass GNG [10]. Very little information from a google news search or google books search. [11] [12] 173.52.99.208 (talk) 12:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC) nominated on behalf of an unregistered editor (by request) and with no opinion -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 13:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article receives more than enough mention on compilation albums and write-ups. May I remind you that pre-Internet bands sometimes do not get a wealth of sources, yet this one gets respectable amounts and is still talked about.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How does this pass GNG? Unreliable sources as per WP:USERG, and WP:RSSELF. 173.52.99.208 (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep I should mention two things. One, that "blog" is actually an extensive interview. The other blog was replaced by a booklet presumably with extensive coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ALongStay (talk • contribs) 17:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unreliable sources as per WP:USERG and WP:RSSELF. Again, no mention as to how this passes GNG! 173.52.99.208 (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Not only have several of their songs been included in compilations, but their song, "We're Gonna Love" is included on Back from the Grave series, which is one of the best-known and most high-profile in the genre. The group's EP was released on Sundazed Records, a relatively large-scale operation. In Mike Markesich's book, Teenbeat Mayhem, in the section that ranks the top 1000 garage rock songs of all time, voted on by a panel of noted garage writers and experts (out of the more than 16,000 US-recorded songs mentioned in the book), "We're Gonna Love" ranks #416, placing it in the top 500 American garage rock records.^[29] So, the band should be considered notable--they warrant an article at Wikipedia. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Grandmothers

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

Reason for deletion - Non notable band. Does not pass GNG and is simply not notable. Parts of the page are a direct copy and paste from the website http://haystackpudding.com/MP3/edafa26c.html . Other sources are blogs [13]. Their own website [14]. Blog [15] A passing mention [16] One website even calls them an obscure band. [17] 173.52.99.208 (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC) added on behalf on an unregistered editor by -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 13:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The earliest psychedelic band of Sweden. Highly innovative and receives extensive coverage in sources provided and albums which continue to represent band years after they disbanded.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unreliable sources as per WP:USERG, and WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:RSSELF. 173.52.99.208 (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep Again, as I said on another Afd by this user who some are saying is an unregistered user avoiding scrutiny, the "blog" is an interview. There more than "passing mentions", in fact, I see four extensive sources, including a CD booklet which is most time well-covered on bands like these.ALongStay (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unreliable sources as per WP:USERG, and WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:RSSELF. 173.52.99.208 (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as DRAFT for now. It seems to me this article has encyclopedic potential. Note the following finds:

Using a Google Books and a Google Scholar search of "Baby Grandmothers" Sweden I discovered some references that seem likely to provide WP:Notability.

There is for example a Scholar (academia.edu) hit Affective Ordering: On the Organization of Retrologies in Music Networks. (p. 66) that states "Baby Grandmothers and the duo Hansson & Karlsson were early and important on the Stockholm scene."
There is a Books hit The Encyclopedia of Swedish Progressive Music, 1967-1979 (ISBN 9789189136229) which apparently has an entry for the band (I do not have access to this book so it will need further research).
[Discogs] has a blurb which states in part:

"Baby Grandmothers were a short-lived Swedish band, but one of the most prolific and unique psychedelic, modal, experimental power-trios to emerge out of the Scandinavian psychedelic underground-scene in 1967. Although hailing from Stockholm, Sweden they only released a single in Finland, which has since become one of the most sought after pieces of vinyl from the era."

There is an editorial blurb in Forbes for an unrelated music website which takes the space to reference them with "Unjustly forgotten bands such as Anonymous from 1977, the 1967 psychedelic Swedish act Baby Grandmothers or ’80s pop-punkers The Scientists [...]".

I am not sure if enough material can be found for a stand-alone article but I think we need to try. This band is obscure but my research for this AfD indicates the band has a historic place in psychedelia, and historically significant subjects should always be somehow found a place in an encyclopedia (if not as a stand-alone then at least as a dedicated section perhaps under psychedelic music). It is possible we may need to use Swedish and Finnish sources for this article (there is a small article on the band at sv.wikipedia) since it was there that they were most significant. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 00:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I see no reason to doubt the notability of this topic--they definitely merit an article. The article seems well-written and researched, to boot. Perhaps we could find some Swedish and Finnish sources, as the previous editor recommended. The article should stand. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No valid reason for deletion given (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 15:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox

AfDs for this article:

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

Wrong Page Name Ashishrsingh (talk) 12:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - This is a disambiguation page for the different topics "Sandbox" could refer to. It's definitely needed to guide readers to what they are looking for. If you want to move the Sandpit page to this title, go to WP:RM. The content for this page, though, should definitely be kept. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 15:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transit Camp Rudrapur

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

Unreferenced with no indication of notability per WP:NPLACE, and no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by creator with the helpful edit summary "fixed typo". ~~Possible~~ Probable hoax. OnionRing (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you can see this place in google map also https://www.google.co.in/maps/place/Transit+Camp+Rd,+Rudrapur,+Uttarakhand+263153/@28.9836592,79.4150846,19z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x39a07fcf813bd147:0x813c32486145f5fe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dipankar Hacker (talk • contribs) 13:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there's an entry on Google Maps for a street by that name, but in this edit you claim it's a suburb, founded by you. OnionRing (talk) 13:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ok i remove thr founder name but don't delete Transit Camp Rudrapur page. Ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dipankar Hacker (talk • contribs) 13:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you didn't found it? And is it a street, or a suburb? Make up your mind. And don't bother trying to removed the AFD tag again while logged out, it will get you nowhere. OnionRing (talk) 13:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

it's street — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.202.149.128 (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

please sir remove ADF tag to Transit Camp Rudrapur Page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dipankar Hacker (talk • contribs) 15:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sir you can see Transit Camp Rudrapur proof in many place in google

http://chennaisharetips.com/areas/transit-camp-rudrapur-u-s-nagar

So i want to tell you that transit camp is real not fake — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dipankar Hacker (talk • contribs) 00:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Relatively a minor street (about 1/2 a mile) with no notability, other than being inherently notable by the author. WP:ROADOUTCOMES... Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 05:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) GSS (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Heuberger

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

No indication of passing WP:GNG. Contains only two sentences. Only used source is routine coverage. T v x1 12:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep- Article is a stub but it doesn't mean subject is non-notable. He was the head coach of German national handball team from 2011 to 2014. Plenty of coverage in German sources to pass WP:GNG. [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25] and there are many more. Hitro talk 17:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He coached a major national team at a World Championship and reached the quarterfinals. The article could be longer, but AFD is not cleanup and the article has potential so there's no reason to delete it because of its present state. Smartyllama (talk) 12:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Indication of passing WP:BASIC is presented above in the sources posted by hitroMilanese. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per HitroMilanese, as he appears to pass the WP:GNG and WP:BASIC requirements. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All was said. I believe i know why it was listed here but whatever. He meets GNG as said above... Kante4 (talk) 10:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To all those keep voters. I did not nominate this article because I think the subject is not notable, but because there is no indication (and certainly no proof) of notability in the article. Notability should not only be assumed, it should also be demonstrated in the article. If this article had been proposed in this state through articles for creation, there is no chance it would have been accepted. This article is currently more suitable for a draft then a main space article. I invite all these keep voters to actually work on it to improve instead of just voting to keep while leaving it in its sorrow state. If improved, perhaps I might reconsider my nomination. T v x1 13:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the "edit this page" link at the top. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does not change the fact, that he meets GNG as mentioned. It can/should be expanded, yes. But not deleted. Kante4 (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because there's no real proof of notability in the article, doesn't mean it's not notable. Notability isn't about the sources in the article, but rather, the coverage that's out there. See WP:BEFORE. Omni Flames (talk) 05:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sainik House

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

Non-notable building in a notable town. Article creator has reverted a redirect to Hanswar and reverted removal of settlement infobox on an article about a building. Unreferenced, and not a single mention of it online in WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by article creator without comment. OnionRing (talk) 11:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 11:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've just noticed that it was recently speedied as a blatant hoax. OnionRing (talk) 12:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this may not be a hoax, there may indeed be a "Sainik House" located in Hanswar. For example, Sainik Rest Houses are guest houses for ex-servicemen and are found throughout India, here are some references - "Sainik Rest House" from Indian Govt Dept of Ex-Servicemen Welfare [26], "Sainik Rest Houses in all over India"[27], "Sainik Rest Houses"[28], nevertheless, this article should be a delete, as this does not meet WP:GNG with no notable sources found.Coolabahapple (talk) 20:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Coolabahapple Uncletomwood (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It may not be a hoax but it has nothing to do with the army or the actual Sainik Rest Houses. This appears to be the house of the editor who uploaded the photograph too. As one who has seen Sainik rest houses I can tell you that the facade is not what you'd expect. Just look at the spamming on yellow pages by someone with the same name as the editor here. It's apparently the house of a local cement trader whose business is named Sainik Traders. I think a SNOW delete would be appropriate here. —SpacemanSpiff 06:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

agree, it is suspicious that the article creator is Shabeehanswar and a contact person at the above yellow pages link is shabee ahmad so looks like a case of WP:PROMOTION. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fine Fair Shopping Centre, similar article started by same editor. OnionRing (talk) 09:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7 and G11. Randykitty (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ZACH TV show

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

Does not appear to be a notable show. Pink Bull 10:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete db-web. It's not a television show, it's a video series the article creator posts to YouTube. OnionRing (talk) 11:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fumizuki clan

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

I suspect this is a hoax, but I'd like other opinions. I can find no reliable sources in English for this, and searches for "文月氏" in Japanese come up with nothing. The word Fumizuki itself is used to name the 7th month in Japanese and can be used in some names, but there is no indication this is an established clan. The only reference to the clan in Wikipedia was added to Toki clan by an IP: [29]. It referred to a reference but that reference did not mention the clan, so I reverted it. Michitaro (talk) 09:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Michitaro (talk) 09:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any reference to this clan in any of my reference books. If it did exist, it doesn't seem to have been notable. --Cckerberos (talk) 11:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if the clan does exist, there's no credible claim to fame, nor any sources of any kind to verify. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched and can't source it, at least I can't source it in English. No sources, no page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW keep. As voters have noted, there is overwhelming coverage of this topic; for instance the top of Google News links directly to this Wikipedia article. Manul ~ talk 22:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(non-admin closure)—FourViolas (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Alton Sterling

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

WP:NOTNEWS Cases of death at the hands of law enforcement become notable when there is a landmark legal decision (whether innocent or guilty), or a great amount of demonstration. The sources say around 100 local demonstrators. This is not in the same magnitude as the similar deaths of people like Michael Brown, Eric Garner or Mark Duggan which clearly pass the 10-year test '''tAD''' (talk) 09:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The shooting has been getting a lot of media attention and it's the most publicized police shooting in the US so far this year. It has gotten a lot of talk among people online, and it's also caught on FILM, and the protests look pretty strong in number. I don't see this as non-notable at all. If it does become unheard of soon, then it's understandable to find it a candidate for deletion. It is also possible this officer could be charged with a crime, and that could result in a long and widely publicized trial. So why are you immediately wanting to get rid of this page? Cyanidethistles (talk) 10:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no deadline, there is nothing to say that this will not be a notable item, and if deleted it would be recreated. You have literally said WP:TOOSOON by adding that nobody has been charged. The current sources say 100 local protestors. That is nothing compared to the nationwide aftermath of the deaths of people like Garner, Brown and Duggan. "talk online" is not a sign of notability. '''tAD''' (talk) 10:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately a large number of people are killed by law enforcement in the United States, so much so that Wikipedia has an article for every month. It is far too early to know if this will be one which stands out. "the protests look pretty strong in number" is original research when the maximum per the sources is 200, in a city of a quarter of a million, and compared to the aforementioned cases which had nationwide protests. The 200 in total is nothing compared to how there were 2,000 arrested alone in the unrest after the death of Duggan, in a country where urban unrest is at a lower scale. '''tAD''' (talk) 11:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So why did shootings like Shooting of Samuel DuBose and Shooting of Dontre Hamilton stay? The first one got quite some national media attention and probably even less protesting, but it's NOT nearly as notable as the Brown or Garner incidents. The Hamilton shooting is probably very unknown to people outside of Wisconsin, and I've heard very little of it on national news, yet it's still here. Cyanidethistles (talk) 11:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS The existence or lack of existence of a page on another subject is not a reason why any other page should exist or not exist. All articles are created by human editors and subject to review at any time '''tAD''' (talk) 11:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has received a lot of media attention, including from CNN and BBC.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 11:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CNN and NY news have reported on it. (found via trivial google search for the name). Furthermore I think it seems to fit into the Probably notable category according to Wikipedia:Notability_(events) because the quality of the video is better than most similar incidents, which will likely create re-analysis as time goes on. Jbeyerl (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per arguments by Jbeyerl. -Mardus /talk 14:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep LK (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:GNG. The shooting has been widely-covered in international sources. - Mr X 15:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Keep, very much in the news, very much not a trivia news cycle tidbit.(mercurywoodrose not logged in)50.193.19.66 (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - There is a listing for this incident here to which "Shooting of Alton Sterling" can be merged. For this reason, I am opposed to deletion. I also oppose a "Snow Keep" at this time, as this AFD is controversial and has been supported by one person. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By "one person" do you mean the nominator? Λυδ α cιτγ 15:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @Audacity:, it appears that way. My point is that deletion should not be an option so long as the List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, July 2016 article exists. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major coverage already, will be more as time goes on. Λυδ α cιτγ 15:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dept of Justice investigation is said to be planned, which means this story is going to have legs. http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-louisiana-police-officer-kills-man-20160706-snap-story.html Deltopia (talk) 17:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google already has 573 articles listed for this, so there's plenty of reliable sourcing for an article. Claiming that the event won't end up being notable is fortune telling. If that turns out to be the case, we have the rest of eternity to have a measured discussion of notability. It's a mistake to force that discussion now when events are still unfolding and the impact cannot possibly be known. -- William Pietri (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like a snow keep to me unless you count the one "keep or merge". Well covered in media (As of now, NYT, WSJ, HuffPo, WaPo, CNN, BBC, LAT, USA Today, CBS, ABC, NBC, People, NYD, LeMonde, AlJazeera) Mvolz (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:SIGCOV and just because an event is newsworthy does not prohibit an article about it, especially if said event is covered by reliable, independent sources. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The state's governor has announced there will be a federal investigation. That is one indication this is not just a random unfortunate death which gets one news cycle of coverage and fades away. Edison (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient media coverage. 37-year-old registered sex offender and only 200 protesters though, really scraping the barrel. Zaostao (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This AFD merely makes Wikipedia look silly.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Keep because Black Lives Matter (and to say it more appropriately, the Black Lives Matter movement guarantees this incident will go beyond any WP:ONEEVENT concerns.) – Muboshgu (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge Unless this is going to stay in the news for more than a day or two, I think this should be deleted or merged into the Law Enforcement Violence articles. I will change my opinion if this turns out to be something akin to Michael Brown/Freddie Gray level, but I think it's very premature to say "Speedy Keep" or obvious keep at this point. This event isn't even a single day old. GoldenSHK (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge Habanerotalk ^Sign?man 21:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:EVENTCRIT: In-depth coverage from NYT, Washington Post, CNN, CBC BBC, Guardian, and TIME, AP constitutes widespread (national or international) impact and...very widely covered in diverse sources, and far exceeds routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities (from WP:NOTNEWS). Justice Dept. probe and ongoing protests ensure this will last more than a news cycle. FourViolas (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This is receiving plenty of media coverage. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of the huge volume of coverage in high-profile, reliable sources. I'm a user who tends to have a fairly strong bias against wanting one-time news to be included, but the coverage here is great. In particular, there's enough material from reliable sources to write a full article. Cazort (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the top news hit on Google news right now (an article in USA today), together with sources from the Associated Press, MSNBC. Over 500,000 news hits clearly shows substantial notability that goes beyond passing ephemera. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage of this incident has exceeded the threshold of noteworthiness. Bus stop (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurav Malhotra

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

I have failed to find reliable sources to support this astrologer's claim of notability either on GNG or BIO. I request a discussion to decide whether this BLP should be deleted or not. Lourdes 07:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need much better sources to establish the notability of an astrologer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Astrospeak website for which he writes the articles belongs to the reputed time of India group which is the most reputed newspaper of India. They only invite notable people to write for their website. GGN

Delete non notable astrologer ,there are several of astrologer consultants on promotional content,astrospeak is non notable website Junosoon —Preceding undated comment added 08:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject not notable. Appears to be promotional to me. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

American Conservative Party

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

Fails the GNG – no significant coverage in independent sources. The party (if it still exists, which is unclear) does not appear to have contested any elections, and has received no media attention. IgnorantArmies (talk) 03:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I flagged this article 3.5 years ago, and the only edits made since were basically to rearrange the deck chairs. There is no evidence that this group was ever notable. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 06:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 07:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 07:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 07:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. & TechBear. No evidence of notability.--JayJasper (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Spam blog. Sandstein 07:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Autoblog

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

Since Autoblog (website) was deleted per an earlier AfD, there is just one item left on this disambiguation page, namely a redirect from Autoblog (automated blog). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 2 entries which meet MOS:DABMENTION. If the website didn't meet MOS:DABMENTION, the best option would have been to redirect the page to the only remaining entry, not delete. However, it does meet it, so dab is valid. Boleyn (talk) 09:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Spam blog, with a ~~redirect~~ hatnote to Weblogs, Inc. per WP:TWODABS. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clarityfiend, you mean hatnote pointing to Weblogs, Inc., right? Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 04:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Spam blog and add a hatnote to Spam blog pointing to Weblogs, Inc. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 04:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selina Chippy

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

Model and runner-up in a minor beauty pageant. This person lacks significant coverage by reliable sources. RS citations are 1) a passing mention in an article about another contestant and 2) a list of contestants. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMODEL. Prod contested. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:Notability. She didn't win, she came in second place. "The People's Choice" has no criteria/selection listed, it's just a link to the pageant and contestants. Only one of the publications is directed specifically to her. Questions regarding BLP - verifiable statements, social media, etc. Nikto wha? 06:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This one is a "social media" poster and I agree that the sources are insufficient to establish notability. She may be able to become notable later, but this is WP:TOOSOON. Montanabw ^(talk) 18:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neither her beuaty pageant nor her modeling is at a level to make her notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if she had won the beauty pageant in question, I am unconvinced that would make her notable, but as a runner up she clearly is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012#Vice-presidential selection. And use editorial discretion to determine how much to merge from the history. "Delete and merge" is not possible because of attribution requirements. Sandstein 07:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vice presidential candidacy of Paul Ryan

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

Paul Ryan's vice presidential candidacy is simply not notable outside of Mitt Romney's 2012 campaign. The only similar page to this is Vice presidential candidacy of Sarah Palin, but I think she's a unique phenomenon. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or List "...Sarah Palin, but I think she's a unique phenomenon". In today’s climate of Political Correctness, can we possibly assert that one VP candidate is more unique by exceptions as simple as perceived sex or intellectual prowess as the primary divisor? I beg not! Perhaps a LIST would be more the predilection. Nikto wha? 02:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]
- I didn't say anything about her gender or intellectual prowess. Palin's selection and the coverage it generated makes it notable. Ryan's doesn't. "Political correctness" has nothing to do with this. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Uniqueness" has quality. Therefore, we can draw segregates in it's definition. Segregates more than imply distinction, and our current political climates do follow the many lines of those distinctions be it implied, intentional, or otherwise. As to VP vacuity, the attention garnered Dan Quayle's "Potatoe" of the same period gleaned much media, along with other asides. Michigan Republican Sen. Zachariah Chandler of Andrew Johnson surely made news when attributed; "The inauguration went off very well except that the Vice President Elect was too drunk to perform his duties and disgraced himself and the Senate by making a drunken foolish speech. I was never so mortified in my life, had I been able to find a hole I would have dropped through it out of sight." The 800lb gorilla in the room was simply Sarah got media. Sarah's attempts at media were sometimes awkward, and perceived as misinformed - i.e. "The Bridge to Nowhere" Gravina Island Bridge. There is no need to state the gorilla weighs 800lb's. However, Sarah is certainly not alone where politics become noteworthy, or PC. Nikto wha? 04:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 07:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 07:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge Muboshgu is correct. The vice-president runs on the ticket alongside the front-running presidential candidate. I'd argue that Sarah Palin's candidacy wasn't notable either, but that's neither here nor there.--TM 12:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- A historical listing is practical, and preserves a readily accessible information stream for future reference. Identifying a VP candidate as a sole construct of the Presidential candidate in an election is a misstatement. There would be no sense in a protracted choice for VP if they don't they exist outside the Pres candidate. In political history, the VP choice was frequently positioned from the opposing party to garner support to swing the election. Perhaps you were not aware of the Democratic-Republican Party, the National Union Party, or the Whig Party and their platforms/affiliations/candidates? Did you know Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Theodore Roosevelt were VP candidates? Were their platforms and ideas important to history? You may not see a VP as anything but a spare tire, but every time one has to assume office you think differently - just ask Lyndon Johnson (Vietnam War) or Gerald Ford (Klutz). Nikto wha? 17:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I really don't get what your point is through all of these comments. TJ and Adams were never "VP candidates", they were runners up in the presidential election back when the U.S. Constitution said that the VP was the second place finisher in the presidential election. And TR and LBJ had no platforms as VP candidates, because they had signed on to the platform of the presidential nominees, McKinley and Kennedy respectively. Paul Ryan had no platform in 2012. Sarah Palin did have "going rogue". – Muboshgu (talk) 20:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally agree with the nom. Of all the US Presidential elections we have just two of these pages. This is clearly not independently notable. AusLondonder (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge w/ Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012#Vice-presidential selection. Per nom., the coverage of Ryan's v.p. candidacy does not exceed that of the coverage routinely given to v.p. candidates. Independent notability not established.--JayJasper (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012#Vice-presidential selection, which could use expansion. If, against the doubts expressed here, it turns out that within that broader topic, due WP:WEIGHT calls for that section to grow substantially and dominate the article, we can spin it out. I agree with most others here, however, that per WP:NOPAGE it makes more sense to cover there (and at the Paul Ryan page, of course). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012#Vice-presidential selection per Rhododendrites. This page has lots of sourced information not on the other page.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012#Vice-presidential selection without a redirect, since Ryan has no actual Vice Presidential campaign. Unless/until he's actually named by the Presidential candidate.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PrOphecy sun

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

My searches found nothing to suggest the artworks have been permanently collected by major art museums "PrOphecy sun artist permanent collections" easily found nothing and the article, albeit sourced, has nothing else to suggest solid independent notability. I would've nearly speedied also given the rather hinting advertorial tone and the listed "reviews and links", I'll also note the exhibitions are not at actual museums either, but instead festivals and event halls. SwisterTwister talk 22:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As noted by nominator, inadequate evidence of notability, as well as having a non-neutral tone. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a performance artist and musician prOphecy sun is unlikely to be in any collections, though as far as I can tell that is besides the point, as the notability guide clearly that 3-5 citations from proper independent sources is what is required to meet the notability guidelines. I am uncertain how deletion can be suggested for lacking notability using a measure that is not indicated in the official wiki notability guidelines. I did edit the language to try to eliminate the biased tone. Thebaconfairy (talk) 07:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Let’s go with the WP:MUSBIO for Musicians/ensembles:

1. …subject of multiple, non-trivial, published…in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of...: Not demonstrated 2. …single or album…national music chart: Not demonstrated 3. …record certified gold or higher: Not demonstrated 4. …non-trivial coverage…reliable sources…international/national concert tour…: Not demonstrated 5. …two or more albums on a major record label/more important indie labels...: Not demonstrated 6. …ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or… prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles…: Not demonstrated 7. …one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style/scene..: Not demonstrated 8. …won or been nominated for a major music award…: Not demonstrated 9. …won first, second or third place in a major music competition…Not demonstrated 10. …performed music for a work of media that is notable…: Not demonstrated 11. …in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network: Not demonstrated 12. …subject of a substantial broadcast segment…national radio or TV...: Not demonstrated

There is no evidence to pursue notability elsewhere. Nikto wha? 03:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I am beating my head against the wall here. In response to Nikto, point # 1 subject of multiple, non-trivial, published…in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of...: Not demonstrated --> this has been demonstrated SwisterTwister kindly pointed out the citations. The best sources are multiple entries from The Georgia Straight- which is the major lifestyle newspaper from Vancouver, a major metropolis city. One of the articles cited from it is the cover story of that issue. Though first and foremost I am sure she would consider herself a performance artist, which her music is apart of. BF (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding your position; WP:TOOSOON. Don't be frustrated, be persistent. Nikto wha? 23:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural Close. I agree with Josh Milburn on this one. As the articles aren't similar enough to have a mass-nom, I think that each should have their own discussion so that editors can focus on that article as their seems to varying consensuses on each article. (non-admin closure) Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Windbreaker (Transformers)

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

This fails to establish notability. The "top thirty" article doesn't really do much on its own.

I am also nominating the following related pages because they're fellow Transformers articles that currently do not establish notability:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For each article:
- Windbreaker (Transformers): neutral, leaning toward recommending a merge somewhere. It's difficult to judge whether the included coverage is significant. I don't see anything worthwhile on Google Books, but the Transformers Collectors Club seems likely to be a reliable source. This sample issue offered for free on their website lists an editor-in-chief and full staff. Our article on Fun Publications says that the publisher is independent of Hasbro. From reading the Windbreaker article, it seems likely that these sources are just price guides and in-universe plot recaps, but who knows. This should probably be merged somewhere, but I don't know where.
- Star Seekers: delete. I don't see significant coverage. Google results are just the usual novels and fan sites. Unlike the prior character, this one doesn't have a bunch of offline, inaccessible sources to put doubt into my mind.
- Moonracer: Redirect (or possibly merge) to List of female Transformers. I found this interview at Comic Book Resources, but that's all.
- Salvage (Transformers): redirect to List of Autobots. The generic name makes it difficult to research, but I don't see anything but novels and fan sites.
- Skyhammer (Transformers): delete. Both Autobots and Decepticons were named this, so it doesn't make sense to redirect it to either of their respective lists. There's no coverage that I can see beyond the usual price guides, novels, and fan sites.
- Stormtroopers (Transformers): redirect to List of Decepticons#Stormtroopers. Again, there doesn't seem to be any coverage in independent reliable sources for this list, which means it fails WP:LISTN.
- Icepick (Transformers): redirect to List of Decepticons. Like the others, this one lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. There are a few price guides indexed by Google Books, but that's about it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with NinjaRobotPirate, whose analysis looks about right. Perhaps Windbreaker requires a separate discussion. As a general note, though, I question the value of these mass nominations; they mean that articles can't always get the consideration they warrant, and can make for complex, frustrating discussions/closes ("no consensus on two, merge three and delete one. Four are being kept, but I note that no one said anything about them".) Josh Milburn (talk) 13:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Higher Institute of Humanistic and Philosophical Studies

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

Non-notable institution. 10 of 12 sources are Google translate pages for the actual institution's home page-- i.e. 10 of 12 sources are self-published. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Tertiary institutions are automatically eligible for inclusion. I don't think we can expect the media to place news items on the history and course offerings of a school, which is the substance of what an encyclopedia publishes. I'm not clear on what we need to verify through further independent sources, which are demanded only to verify existence and support boasting.Jzsj (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Relevant policies are at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I see nothing significant in news or book sources. My sense is also that this is a subsidiary of the "Our Lady of..." university that is mentioned as the actual institution that grants the degrees.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 21:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 07:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 07:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a degree-awarding institution per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Institutions of higher learning are assumed to be notable. One would have to prove this is a sham, but it is clearly not a sham, it is a respected institution of higher learning. Maybe not super respected, but it is a real institution and so we keep the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Elections in Nicaragua#Municipal_election_results_1990-2004. Valid search target. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 00:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Viva Managua Movement

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

No reliable sources to establish notability per WP:ORG. Unreferenced since October 2006. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Elections in Nicaragua#Municipal election results 1990-2004. A search for sources finds several probably reliable that confirm that this organisation did run a candidate for Mayor of Managua in 1996, taking advantage of what seems to have been a short-lived provision in Nicaraguan electoral law, who was expected to win but was in fact narrowly defeated. Seeing that Managua is both Nicaragua's capital and its largest city, it is not surprising that this organisation gets passing mentions when the electoral provision it used is discussed in accounts of the 1996 elections. However, the target article already gives every fact in this article in better context. The same also applies to Civic Association of Potosí, although that organisation won the corresponding election in Potosí (and actually has a cited source apparently confirming this) and therefore arguably has a better case for stand-alone notability. PWilkinson (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Pritchard

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

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Notability all seems to be inherited from The Kooks as opposed to individually. Suggest redirect to The Kooks. PGWG (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, leaning to strong keep. The Kooks are a big enough band, and he gets enough coverage himself to have an article within WP:MUSICBIO, irrespective of a lack of solo releases. He's done significant news features on his own, such as this and this. He's also covered by major news sites as a celebrity in his own right, such as here and here. That's just from a quick search and this coverage goes back to 2005 or 2006 or so. The article is poor but he's established notability beyond the name of the band. KaisaL (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as agree his projects outside the band have gained him enough coverage that he has independent notability for an individual article and that WP:BASIC is passed Atlantic306 (talk) 02:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noel C. Spencer

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

County-level politician with no indication of notability per WP:POLITICIAN. Only one of the two references cited mentions him, and I can find no significant coverage of him online in WP:Reliable sources, just the passing mentions in local press that one would expect to see for a local official. I can also find nothing to verify the claimed awards won, all of which are of unclear notability. OnionRing (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 18:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 18:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 18:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. County-level officeholders are not automatically notable per WP:NPOL — they can get Wikipedia articles if they can be sourced and substanced over WP:GNG, but this isn't well-sourced and is written very much more like a campaign brochure than an encyclopedia article. Which means nothing here is enough. Bearcat (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete county level politician who comes no where near being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete political positions held do not confer notability, and I cannot find sufficient other RS material to establish notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pants Pankuro

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

There are a bunch of shorts (90+ on MADB), but hardly any secondary source coverage, only retailers such as CD Japan and of course NHK's website. Can't seem to find the ANN entry either. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No listing in the 3rd edition of Anime Encyclopaedia, although given the target age of the series perhaps not surprising.SephyTheThird (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any coverage of the show in reliable sources to establish notability. (Though PopSci mentions: "but as a nation that has a cartoon show teaching potty training to kids (check out Pants Pankuro), Japan takes their toilets very seriously" and there's a Google Books hit for Infant Potty Training: A Gentle and Primeval Method Adapted to Modern Living) Searching using the kanji returns mainly retail sites. While this would make an interesting article, unfortunately there isn't enough information on it to write a verifiable article. Opencooper (talk) 07:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is a bit telling when the article is also tagged over at ja:wiki for having a notability issue. This combined with no sources to be found leaves my opinion as delete. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to be notable, the ja.wiki point says a lot.SephyTheThird (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Niall Hetherington

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

Non-notable athlete that fails WP:ATHLETE. Only coverage is routine local sports news and being in a book whose descriptions as put out by the publisher and Amazon.ca don't mention his name [30], [31]. Also conflict of interest issues since the primary contributor seems to be one of the authors of the book. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable player. -DJSasso (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NHOCKEY and my search didn't find enough to show he meets GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Giancarlo Iuorio

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

This article does not meet the criteria for general notability, and does not pass the criteria for hockey notability WP:NHOCKEY. Alaney2k (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks the coverage to meet WP:GNG and the achievements to meet WP:NHOCKEY or WP:NCOLLATH.Mdtemp (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NHOCKEY and WP:NCOLLATH. Smartyllama (talk) 13:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Qpass

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

The only basis for notability here is the company's own say-so. There isn't even financial data outside of its ownc laims for itself. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I planned to comment before the relist, my searches have simply found nothing actually better and the article especially has nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 01:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article as it stands - under notable - uncertain verifiability. Salvage to an encyclopedic list of internet banking / financial transaction organisations. Aoziwe (talk) 12:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep - Appears to meet WP:GNG: [32], [33]. ~Kvng (talk) 18:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

both of these appear to me to be a comination of mere notices about an acquisition,and a press release, because most of it parrots the company's advertisements. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A number of sources giving substantial coverage to this phone have been found. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LG K10

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

NN phone. We have no articles on any K series phone, and redirecting to the K series article is pointless, as there's no content there except for the names of the phones. No content worth merging. MSJapan (talk) 09:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability far too slender (if at all). Xxanthippe (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG due to numerous in-depth product reviews e.g. [34], [35], [36]. ~Kvng (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a WP:GNG pass. In addition to sources provided by Kvng, I also found [37], [38], [39], which should be plenty to build a C-class article. SST flyer 03:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to LG K10. There is consensus that this does not meet the requirements for a standalone article, and a number of plausible locations have been found for a redirect. As for the specific location, there really wasn't consensus one way or another. I've chosen LG K10 since the redirect subject appears to be more closely related. If anyone feels particularly strongly about the redirect location, please bring it up on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LG K series

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

WP:LISTCRUFT. Nothing but a list of products, not reflected in the LG product navbox, and none of the products have articles that are encyclopedic. Oddly enough, LG K10 says it's a budget phone, and this article says the series is high-end. Someone is clearly wrong. MSJapan (talk) 09:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not only are there minimal contents, there's still nothing else at all convincing this particular series is independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 20:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to LG K10, which looks to be heading towards a keep. From a quick Google search for sources, the K10 is clearly notable, while the K7 and K4 may have just enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. SST flyer 03:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT to List of LG mobile phones is what I'd suggest. Centerone (talk) 06:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Gidley

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

Notability completely unestablished. No non-primary sources. Flagged since 2010 without improvement. PROD removed with assertion of possible notability, but without repair of problems. For a BLP to be kept, we absolutely need the verifiable third-party reliable sources. I see no news coverage beyond a single letter to the editor, and nothing at all that constitutes a third-party source of biographical information on the subject - David Gerard (talk) 00:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't really sum it up better than the nom did. MSJapan (talk) 03:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article was created in 2009 so is not subject to newer BLP requirements. We're not debating the quality of the article here, the article can be improved. Slow progress, also not a valid reason to delete (WP:NODEADLINE). We should be focused on the notability of the subject. Her work has been cited over 1000 times so I think it is clear that she is influential in her field and therefore meets WP:NACADEMIC. ~Kvng (talk) 04:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You're still talking hypotheticals that there's been no evidence presented for. Getting citations is not sufficient to pass WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMICS (indeed Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Citation_metrics warns specifically against glib measures of citation such as Google Scholar) - which guideline were you thinking of that it is in fact relevant to? This article presently doesn't pass general notability, let alone BLP notability. You're just claiming she could be notable some time in the future - there's been six years to come up with anything, and in that time there's been nothing. If you have the evidence, please add it to the article - David Gerard (talk) 09:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing deletion because you want other editors to improve articles is not good form. AfD is not for cleanup. I don't think have made a good case for deletion. WP:NACADEMIC does not require news coverage and thank god for that because we don't want WP to be People magazine. ~Kvng (talk) 23:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm proposing it for deletion because there's no evidence, in six years, that it can be cleaned up. If these sources exist, bring them, don't just talk about how they should hypothetically exist - David Gerard (talk) 07:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. GS h-index of 19 is a bit below par for the well-cited field of pop-psychology. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as there's still nothing outstandingly convincing for the motivatingly noticeable independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is a clear consensus that these pages should not be kept but that the info should remain somewhere, I'm not seeing a consensus as to where though. I hope to see this discussion continue on the relevant talk pages to determine the best merge/redirect destination. J04n(talk page) 14:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crackle (physics)

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a neologism that practically has no use in physics other than for humor. This is the second time this article has been recreated after an AfD, perhaps it should be SALTed.

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Pop (motion)

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

ANDROS¹³³⁷ _TALK 02:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per previous discussions. Nothing has changed to improve these articles since, and there is no evidence that they have any serious application. Seyasirt (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In addition to the two academic sources referenced in the two articles, here are some more sources using these concepts:

Dingwell, Jonathan B.; Mah, Christopher D.; Mussa-Ivaldi, Ferdinando A. (1 March 2004). "Experimentally Confirmed Mathematical Model for Human Control of a Non-Rigid Object". Journal of Neurophysiology. 91 (3): 1158–1170. doi:10.1152/jn.00704.2003. ISSN 0022-3077. Retrieved 8 June 2016.
Nitadori, Keigo; Iwasawa, Masaki; Makino, Junichiro (9 May 2008). "6th and 8th Order Hermite Integrator Using Snap and Crackle". Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union. 3 (S246). doi:10.1017/S1743921308016207.
Dunajski, Maciej; Gibbons, Gary (1 January 2008). "Cosmic jerk, snap and beyond". Classical and Quantum Gravity. 25 (23): 235012. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/25/23/235012. ISSN 0264-9381.
Jazar, Reza N. Advanced Dynamics: Rigid Body, Multibody, and Aerospace Applications. John Wiley & Sons. p. 131. ISBN 9780470892138. Retrieved 8 June 2016.
Davidson, Ian; Tippett, Mark. Principles of Equity Valuation. Routledge. p. 6. ISBN 9780415696029. Retrieved 8 June 2016.
Transformation of 4-D dynamical systems to hyperjerk form by Zeraoulia Elhadj and J. C. Sprott

--Mark viking (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both articles to Jounce, or possibly Snap, Crackle and Pop#Physics. Lots of notable physics terms are jokes: quark, strange, charm, barn, qubit, anyon, ... the question is whether these terms are in use. The 8 sources above show that both crackle and pop are used across the fields of physics, human motion, control theory, and finance. None of the mentions are in enough depth to justify standalone articles, but both are verifiable across multiple independent reliable sources. Our policy is to WP:PRESERVE verifiable content when we can, and in this case merge is an obvious alternative to deletion. As the next derivatives in the series beyond jounce/snap, it makes sense to put in a section with their definitions and a few examples of use in that article--in fact they are already mentioned there. --Mark viking (talk) 18:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This discussion was not created with the right template and was never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I offer no opinion on the nomination itself at this time. @Andros 1337: For future nominations, please fully follow the procedure at WP:AFDHOWTO. --Finngall ^talk 01:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 15:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both to Snap, Crackle and Pop#Physics, as per Mark viking. Legit terms that are in use; not enough material to support separate articles but the formulae and some notes about application would be nice to have in the above article.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

amended, see below -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both to Snap, Crackle and Pop#Physics. On the merits: I see no material worth keeping, as the target article already says all that is to be said. I hope none is seriously suggesting to put 5+ lines of (trivial) equations into an article about cereal elves.

On the form, the nominating statement is strongly implying something that is false. The former AfDs for crackle were one NC and one redirect to displacement (vector), and the AfD for pop was NC. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a brief definition of all of these terms to Glossary of physics. Snap, Crackle and Pop is the wrong place because it is about breakfast cereal mascots, not physics. Sandstein 07:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've also AfD-ed the mascots: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snap, Crackle and Pop. Sandstein 07:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of physics seems like a good location for the definition, and yes, better than the muesli. But that page is seriously underlinked (i.e., there's little chance a reader would ever end up there). So maybe combine this with either a redirect, or a disambiguation if the cereal stays.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge strong, all of Pop (physics), Crackle (physics), Jounce/(Snap (physics)) into a new section in Kinematics which should also refer to Jerk (physics). And replace with redirects. If this is this AfD's outcome ping me and I am happy to do it do it (but closer please let me copy the content to do so before actual delete occurring). Aoziwe (talk) 13:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will also pull in the references above as appropriate and develop a consistent section pulling the whole series together. Aoziwe (talk) 13:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect perhaps if there's still questionability regarding the current contents, anything can be mentioned there if needed but I'm still not seeing the full convincing of keeping as its own. SwisterTwister talk 20:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all three into one article. The concepts of snap, crackle, and pop in the physics context should be covered, but the current collection of pop (physics), jounce, snap (physics), and crackle (physics) is a silly way to organize them. And the articles are badly written too; a massive display of differential equations doesn't add anything to the reader's understanding of the concepts. I would merge all three of those into a common article, say higher-order position derivatives, which discusses all of them in a coherent way, and leaves out (or, at least, reduces) the equation carpet-bomb. And, some sort of navigation aids, connecting these with the Snap, Crackle and Pop -- RoySmith (talk) 13:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or, as Aoziwe suggests above, merge them into a unified discussion in a section of Kinematics. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge either per Aoziew or RoySmith. Just because they are facetious does not meant that they are unencyclopedic. They should however, be covered in one place (wherever that may be) and have these individual pages redirect there. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if we have six articles rather then two (non of them a textbook), it exactly shows that the term is not widespread. Physics is a , well, sufficiently developed field, and established concepts are cited in thousands, at least in hundreds.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to somewhere in the Wikiverse. Bearian (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian:. Could you clarify what you mean by Wikiverse? Do you mean, Merge them into some other article on wikipedia, or do you mean, Transwiki them into some other wiki outside of wikipedia? Not trying to influence your opinion, just get more clarity around what you intended. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Flemming (artist)

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

Non-notable artist. Does not pass GNG. Maybeparaphrased (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Weak keep this is a tough one notability-wise, as I have had trouble finding sources. If I come up with some I'll add them. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 01:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References from New York Times and Vice magazine do support claim for notability. I tend toward keepipng, unless convinced otherwise. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Significant coverage in Canadian Art and nontrivial (albeit briefer) coverage in the NYT seems to meet the "multiple in-depth reliable sources" test of WP:GNG, and both also show that his notability is more than purely local. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Keep. Since the AfD nomination, I've added refs for Macleans (republished in the Canadian Encyclopedia) and non-trivial reviews in ETC magazine and the respected newspaper Le Devoir. I think it makes it now. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. SNOW keep; no other result is possible DGG ( talk ) 20:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Scherman

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

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

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Be aware that using multiple accounts to reinforce a viewpoint is considered a serious breach of community trust, and that commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maybeparaphrased (talk • contribs) 03:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable artist. Does not pass GNG. Maybeparaphrased (talk) 01:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His website lists a number of sources, many with links that can be verified. There are reviews and articles in Border Crossings, Globe and Mail, Art in America, amongst others. His exhibition record is decent -- some °museum shows. And he appears to be in the collections of many museums (needs verification beyond his website). Passes GNG and ARTIST. The article just needs to be improved with sources. freshacconci talk to me 11:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Speedy Keep, His web site lists over a dozen significant museums that have his work in their permanent collection, which means he meets WP:ARTIST, not to mention the equally true arguments made by freshacconci above. WP:BEFORE was needed here.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 00:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added five permanent collection he is in, as well the fact that he has five drawings in the Pompidou's collection in Paris. Also known as the National Art Museum, or "Musée National d'Art Moderne". This is only about a third of the collections he is in. I would suggest that he clearly meets WP:ARTIST by the collections, and that the AfD should be closed as speedy keep. Changing vote above.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 00:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whatever his website does or does not state does not really indicate if the article at afd meets NARTIST . That of course would be a primary not secondary much less independent source. Maybeparaphrased (talk) 01:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Check WP:ARTIST. He meets the requirements under being in numerous museum collections, many of which are sourced on the article page. Quote"The person's work (or works)... (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." Pompidou. Numerous others. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 01:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per HVE et al --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment I checked ARTIST before I nominated him. You are claiming against AGF that I did not observe BEFORE here at and at other articles nominated by me for deletion. Then I figured it out when I looked up all the original article creators and I noted that two articles written by you were sent to afd. Using AGF I must surmise it is just a coincidence. So if you have a problem, take it to a better venue. AFD is not the place to try to get back at someone by claiming in bad faith that they did not observe before. Understand it, I always do research and observe before. Stop falsely claiming I do not in order to try and influence others at AFD. It is not proper. Maybeparaphrased (talk) 01:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The ten museum collections (including the national Museum of Gfrance, at the Pompidou) that I easily found and added to the article, which gaurantee notability, are something that should have been found during WP:BEFORE. That is my only point. Please cease making false claims against me, as you were warned to do by admins at the recent ANI. Let's move along with the AfD with civility please.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator in this case GNG is met. On another matter I think it is rude and disruptive for HappyValleyEditor to have bad faith and accuse someone iof no before. Rather that admit when maybe addresses the poor behaviour he strikes out at him make more trouble at an AFD when the guy asked him to stop and go to a better venue. I have left a warning on the page of HappyValleyEditor for his bad faith shown here. Take that somewhere else. Zpeopleheart (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I make no false claims. While you are at it trying further to muddy this AFD. You were warned at that ANI you are referring to to steer clear of an editor that you tried to get in trouble. I guess it is another coincidence that since I disagreed with your position there you are now showing up at adds where I have posted falsely claiming I do not observe before. You were wrong on that. Your asking for a IBan was denied. Stop showing bad faith. Maybeparaphrased (talk) 02:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added ten museum collections, over twenty publications and a half dozen news/periodical refs, so this should be a strong keep now. I'll leave the article as it is and let other editors decide now.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having such list of permanent collections and source I have no any doubt, this one is for keep. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Who exactly is the "majority vote" template directed towards? I've been involved with hundreds (thousands?) of AfDs and when that template is needed it's always because the discussion is littered with SPAs and new accounts calling for keep/delete without citing Wikipedia policy. I don't see any evidence of that here. In fact, the whole discussion is taking place with the involvement of only experienced editors. freshacconci talk to me 14:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article satisfies WP:ARTIST. Sherman has received recognition for his use of encaustic painting (WPARTIST#2), he is the creator of a substantial body of work that has been critically reviewed (WPARTIST#3), and his work has been exhibited in and collected by notable museums (WPARTIST#4) Mduvekot (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, i think WP:TEA may be needed here Coolabahapple (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets 4.(d) of WP:CREATIVE as Scherman's work " is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.", article now reflects this thanks to HappyValleyEditor. Scherman also meets 3. as his works "have been the subject of .. multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." as shown by ebsco: Art in America "Reviews the first Paris exhibition by Canadian, Tony Scherman .."[40], Art Papers "The article reviews the exhibition of Tony Scherman's contemporary painting "About 1789"[41], Border Crossings "The article focuses on the art exhibition 'Tony Scherman: pensees impensables."[42], Art in America "Examines the relationship between power and human destructiveness through the encaustic portraits by Tony Scherman"[43], The New Yorker "Highlights the shows in several art galleries in New York City as of September 2004. .. Features Tony Scherman's "The Body Project."[44]. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability can be derived from claims on an artist's website. Mere mentions at a few articles is not significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 20:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

please explain how references 9 through to 17 are "claims on an artist's website." and while you're at it that one page reviews are "mere mentions". Coolabahapple (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant, his exhibition record and museum collections (all verified) automatically satisfy WP:ARTIST and articles in Border Crossings, Globe and Mail and Art in America, not to mention numerous reviews are enough by far to satisfy WP:GNG. Not sure how you get "mere mentions at a few articles" from the bibliography on his website. freshacconci talk to me 01:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I essentially concur with Coolabahapple's analysis. Deli nk (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple permanent collections of notable museums shows clear national-level notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Joy Bus

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

Promotional article , sourced to local promotional press releases.If the promotional material were removed there would be nothing left. This gives no evidence for notability , but even if there were to be some, borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason for deletion. I consider this a clear G11, but another ed. removed the tag. DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with DGG, this article is very promotional and references press releases as sources. Originally nominated under CSD:G11 but tag was removed as another editor objected. Dane2007 (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I also concur that not only is there nothing convincing for the needed notability, it's also hinting speedy delete material. SwisterTwister talk 23:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donnie Lucero

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

Does not have significant coverage in independent reliable sources and does not meet the subject-specific notability guideline (WP:NAFL), having only played at an amateur level. Jenks24 (talk) 11:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NAFL and WP:GNG - Yellow Dingo (talk) 11:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable player of Australian rules football.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Flickerd (talk) 06:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter Bas Kwak

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

Good example of what a non-notable eSports article looks like. Basically no mention in recognized reliable sources. Very little claim of important other than supposedly being the best Dutch Counter-Strike player ever Prisencolin (talk) 00:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable eSports player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per nomination. Sergecross73 msg me 17:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage to show GNG is met.Mdtemp (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Landis

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

Not yet notable per WP:MUSICBIO. The only reference that gives substantial coverage is the Digital Trends interview. The rest are passing mentions, and only all I can find about him are more passing mentions of his work, and reviews on blogs, with no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. OnionRing (talk) 13:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 13:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BBNM

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

No external references. Doesn't appear to exist now. No evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of 3rd party sources to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no sources could be found to support notability. Looking at http://research.domaintools.com/research/screenshot-history/bbnm.org/ and https://web.archive.org/web/20130518161859/http://bbnm.org/ the web site has been down since 2013 or 2012. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keven Veilleux

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 04:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing has changed since the previous two deletions. Still non-notable. -DJSasso (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is still a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One thing that has changed since the last deletion is that he now meets the old criteria of 100 games in AHL-level leagues (95 AHL + 5 Slovakia). But another thing that has changed is that criterion has increased to 200 games. Rlendog (talk) 01:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.whois.com/whois/rishabhshanbhag.com

[2] ttps://www.idownloadblog.com/2012/11/19/actisearch/

[3] ttps://dailyiphoneblog.com/2012/11/20/cydia-tweak-review-actisearch/

[4] ttps://appadvice.com/appnn/2012/11/actisearch-jailbreak-tweak-search-numerous-sources-using-an-activator-action

[5] ttps://twitter.com/AppAdvice

[6] ttps://www.iphonehacks.com/2012/11/actisearch-allows-you-to-search-cydia-facebook-twitter-using-activator-actions.html

[7] ttps://www.ijailbreak.com/cydia/actisearch-cydia-tweak-ios/

[8] ttps://www.iphonecaptain.com/actisearch-cydia-tweak0-99-search-different-sites-using-activator/

[9] ttps://www.bestcydiatweaks.com/actisearch.html

[10] ttps://www.ispazio.net/375762/actisearch-aggiungiamo-scorciatoie-per-le-ricerche-su-internet-e-sui-social-network-cydia-video

[11] ttps://www.applespot.nl/30310/snel-zoeken-in-youtube-cydia-facebook-ebay-en-meer-met-actisearch-jailbreak/

[12] ttps://infoidevice.fr/actisearch-ajouter-des-raccourcis-vers-des-recherches-sur-internet-et-les-reseaux-sociaux/

[13] ttps://www.appleteam.gr/actisearch-μια-νέα-εφαρμογή-για-την-εύκολη-και-ά/

[14] ttps://www.idownloadblog.com/2012/11/11/nonewapp/

[15] ttps://appadvice.com/appnn/2012/11/nonewapp-jailbreak-tweak-removes-the-new-app-banner

[16] ttps://modmyi.com/content/9210-hide-ios-6s-new-app-banner-nonewapp.html

[17] ttps://www.iphoneitalia.com/434299/nonewapp-un-tweak-per-rimuovere-letichetta-nuovo-dalle-applicazioni-scaricate-da-app-store-cydia

[18] ttps://www.applophile.fr/supprimer-le-badge-nouveau-des-applications-avec-le-tweak-nonewapp/

[19] ttps://jaxov.com/2012/08/idebstore-jailbreak-app-store/

[20] ttps://www.redmondpie.com/idebstore-for-ios-aims-to-provide-yet-another-fast-and-efficient-web-based-cydia-alternative/

[21] ttps://macgenesis.net/idebstore-cydia-alternative/

[22] ttps://veryrite.com/2012/07/18/idebstore/

[23] ttps://thehowmade.com/idebstore-a-new-and-faster-cydia-alternative-in-making

[24] ttps://www.tesux.com/2012/08/05/idebstore-alternative-for-cydia-accessible-from-desktop-and-ios/

[25] ttps://www.iphoneitalia.com/409627/idebstore-per-ios-una-nuova-alternativa-a-cydia

[26] ttps://www.valuewalk.com/2012/08/idebstore-competition-for-cydia-accessible-from-desktop-and-ios/

[27] ttps://www.iculture.nl/nieuws/idebstore-wil-snel-alternatief-voor-cydia-worden/

[28] ttps://www.ibtimes.com/ios-611-untethered-jailbreak-exists-uses-redsn0w-evasi0n-do-trick-beta-1-tutorial-1073780

[Markesich_(Winston)-29] Markesich, Mike (2012). Teen Beat Mayhem (First ed.). Branford, Connecticut: Priceless Info Press. p. 366. ISBN 978-0-9856482-5-1.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]