< 21 July	23 July >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear consensus to keep. Editors need not, apparently, be reminded that AfD is not for cleanup, but perhaps it's useful to tell them that cleanup (article improvement) is certainly not forbidden: it's always a shame to see sourcing in an AfD that is not then brought into the article. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Nwankwor[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; couldn't find any article detailing the subject online. Only self published sources and social media sites. Jamie Tubers (talk) 23:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The best source I could find for this person is here. The rest I ran into weren't secondary reliable sources that would come close to meeting WP:GNG. Although the source I provided is secondary and reliable, there aren't enough sources to assert that this person has significant coverage, and hence I do not believe that WP:GNG is met. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep - per the sources provided below by Wikicology. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)|[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:- Obviously notable. Subject of the article easily meet WP:FILMMAKER#3 as the scriptwriter, director and producer of Tempting Fate. In addition, i found Thisdaylive, PM News, The Sun News, Nigerian Entertainment News, Daily Sun News, Vanguard News, News Headlines to mention few. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: You just gave links talking about a film which he directed and not publications about the subject of this article. According to the criteria you cited, the work (which is a film in this case) can only make him notable if it has "been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Is there any book written on Tempting Fate? Or maybe an independent documentary film on it? or expert analysis? weekly column in a newspaper?--Jamie Tubers (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that Tempting Fate is not a significant or well-known work, then why are you still waiting? Take it to WP:AfD and let see how far your argument will go! I still found News Telegraph. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I deem the subject of the article notable as it surely passes WP:FILMMAKER#3 per multiple reliable sources highlighted by Wikic¤l¤gy. Eruditescholar (talk) 04:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:BASIC through the multiple independent reliable sources found through diligent WP:BEFORE and offered here to us by Wikicology. Nominator, I believe you may be misinterpreting WP:BASIC, which tells us we need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and which offer more-than-trivial information about a topic being sourced. What is often overlooked is that a topic being sourced does not have to be the sole topic spoken of in a source, and significant does not mandate "substantial" Imagine... that non-policy is a redlink... imagine that. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. "If"s are nice but useless. Consensus is to delete since no sources could be found. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Morounfola Dada Anifalaje[edit]

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

No reliable sources found to verify notability — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 23:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 23:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 23:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could not locate any sources to satisfy WP:GNG. This guidelines requires significant reliable secondary independent coverage for any biography - none of which that I could find. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if sources can be found, as he would be a notable person. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSTBESOURCES. the onus is on keep voters to demonstrate coverage . LibStar (talk) 03:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you missed that little word "if" in my post! Take another look. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My searches including the simplest found nothing good to suggest improvement and better understanding of the article. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - minor nobility, even kings, of non-sovereign nations are just not notable. Bearian (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Preponderance among policy-based arguments is that he fails the GNG, FOOTY, and SPORT. Coverage hinted at by one editor asked for by Huon was not supplied; suggestions that Google somehow proves him notable--well, those just aren't helpful. Drmies (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kobort Koffa[edit]

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

No indication of notability. He has never played in a fully professional league. Sources largely are trivial or unrelaible, at times outright promotional ("We do the following at Libstars.com: 1. Promoting Liberian Players playing home and aboard."). Huon (talk) 22:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)).

Weak keep I passed it through AfC, not because of WP:FOOTY auto qualifiers, but because I believed it scraped by WP:GNG. Coverage is notable in Liberia. Combined with mild, passing coverage in college and Denmark was enough to show it not to be regional. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please point out the specific coverage you're referring to? I saw only promotional websites from Liberia, no reliable sources, plus some Danish sports coverage explicitly listed as "local sports". Huon (talk) 00:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The player has played in full profession games. if not he wouldn't be listed with the Danish D2 topscorers of 2015 season http://www.dbukoebenhavn.dk/turneringer_og_resultater/resultatsoegning/poolTopscorer.aspx?poolid=194712&showall=true also, the sources you are referring to as unreliable is one of Liberia's top online news websites. Note that Liberia (where the player is from] is the 4th poorest country in the world, so may not be as advanced as other countries to have many reliable news by your standard or view Huon so double check your facts, the player has also played in competitive college football in the USA, and Google attest to that. For a new player in Europe, the page has standard source to be kept

~~keep~~ ´he is a player playing in the Danish league system away from his home - Liberia. yes you can say not much is covered on him as sources yet, but remember not much is covered on Liberia or its player in general ( as its a small and very poor country ). So the source (libstars.com) is one of Liberia's top news sources for years. also other stats from the Danish league association,NCAA college

sports website, colleges the play played for should be regarded...

— Sportsnation213 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please do not !vote more than once. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep the player is listed here in the gamesheet as a svebolle b&I player ( which is a dnaish pro team) http://fchnet.dk/?p=210

— 2.107.137.66 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully professional league, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT, and the coverage he has received is run-of-the-mill sports coverage, which is insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

low KEEP yes the article may not have high sources but I have researched the player, and he is one of his country's (liberia) highly monitored players abroad. The player is broadcast on liberia'a many top radio stations and monitored by top news stations in liberia alone with other Liberians playing abroad. I understand that liberia is a poor country and has limited access or experience in technology so most of their local news are either in news papers or on the radio ( which don't usually get on the internet). And given the fact that the Danish Football Association listed the player as a player in their league, (don't matter the league as long the player is paid and the club is listed as a pro club that should surface) I think the article merates "keep"

We could recommend edits maybe but definitely keep cause the player appears to be a player that the public seem interrested in, and citations were made in the article backing where the player has played (college and in Denmark) *KEEP

— 94.191.185.64 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~ the player seem to be one of Liberia's highly monitored footballers (by Google search), and some sources in the article seem pretty reliable ( the website libstar.com, colleges official websites and so). Also, per the Danish league, the player has officially played in games in the Danish league 2. And given the player's heritage, d2 in Europe is a high standard (expecially when the league is classified as "pro" by Fifa or the local FA) I think the article should be kept.

@Sportsnation213: Please sign your comments by typing four tildes (~~~~) after them so they may be properly attributed to you. Also, you are not permitted to vote more than once. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Sputnik|Sir Sputnik I have made few edits to other pages too, accuracy is what interests me and validity. I do not wish to rubb on with this discussion, but as mentioned in my earlier comment, the player or individual seems to meet some standards to set him up for a page. I researched, he is a registered player of the club (which is a pro team in Denmark), and he is one of the highly monitored footballers from his country per Google searching. I know I am new to Wikipedia and edits and so ( but there many other pages on here that don't have even as close as information as this page has, yet they are still running fine for years), so it's not about anything else then saying what merits - and I think, based on the records from the Danish football association, the club, a local online news website (which @houh thinks is not "much reliable"), and other sourceses from his previous college, I think this page merits keep. Like I said before, maybe fee adjustment could be recommended or even made via your expertise but not deleting the entire page when clearly there is evidence that this page merits keep. I do not wish to sound offense in anyway, neither have I ever met the player in person but as a member of the local Danish sports news channel, thought I'll share my view on the matter. Either taken to consideration or less regarded, I'm sure you could find some logic and facts in my opinions. Thanks for your time

Sportsnation213 (talk) 09:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. I am concerned that a lot of of superficially looks like signfiicant coverage is in fact overtly promotional. Fenix down (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WEEK KEEP So far looks like the writer who made the page is inexperienced with Wikipedia's style as there may be a few wordings that sound a bit promotional, but looking at the page itself I think that it should be kept. I double checked the sources provided, I wouldn't say they are "weak" as they also seem to be reporting accurate headlines of "Liberian players" and have been credited as one of Liberia's reliable news sources. I'm new to Wikipedia too, but I will suggest the page be kept (reason being: the argument on here so far is about "the player playing in a 'full professional game'), so far it looks like the player is playing for Svebolle B&I, and if so then he has played in a professional game. I am not sure what your definition of "professional " is but if the Danish Football Association itself lost a club or league division as a pro or semi-pro team, why dispute? I also check out a like provided on here by the previous comments and the player is listed as a scorer for the said team by the Danish football Association official website. I recommend the article be kept, but you might suggest other - before then, check the facts again...double check cause so far the source may not be as strong as u wish, but seems legit. God bless

Dreamguy2014 (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Dreamguy2014 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamguy2014 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Sportsnation213 (talk · contribs) Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep does meet wp:GNG and Google search engine proves the player is highly searched proving nobility.

94.191.189.114 (talk) 11:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— 94.191.189.114 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Azuay[edit]

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

Local event, fails WP:NEVENT, WP:GNG AND WP:RS. The Banner talk 22:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable pageant, Fails NEVENT& GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sufficiently notable. Local pageant. Fails WP:GNG WP:NEVENTS.--Jersey92 (talk) 01:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Cañar[edit]

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

Local event, no serious content The Banner talk 22:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable pageant, Fails NEVENT& GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sufficiently notable = local pageant. Fails WP:GNG WP:NEVENTS --Jersey92 (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss El Oro[edit]

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

Local event, fails WP:NEVENT, WP:GNG AND WP:RS. The Banner talk 22:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable pageant, Fails NEVENT& GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sufficiently notable. It's just a local pageant. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NEVENTS. --Jersey92 (talk) 01:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absent any references to demonstrate notability--offered or to be found--this entry merely serves as promotion. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Ivy Carter[edit]

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

Major case of WP:INHERITED. When user brought the article back into the mainspace, they even said "and famous parents" when saying she's notable. Opening line of the article even states "known for being the daughter of American singer Beyoncé Knowles and rapper Jay-Z." ~~Article is riddled with BLP violations I should probably have removed, things like "details the heartbreak the couple suffered over a previous miscarriage."~~ when covering the subject of a song Ivy features on. Certainly not notable at this stage in her life, possible WP:FANCRUFT from a Beyoncé or Jay-Z fan. Azealia911 _talk 21:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability is not inherited, and WP:BIOFAMILY states "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person". Far WP:TOOSOON for a separate article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as there's nothing to suggest a notable and independent article. This was protected several times and this last time happened because it expired this January.SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She's only notable because of her parents. Calidum T|C 21:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adaora Angela Ayoade[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't find the significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources that establish her notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no significant coverage either. The sources in the article do not establish notability, and the article itself reads like a cross between a resume and a press release. -- Whpq (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. This is not a place where every single person who exists as a professional anything automatically gets to have an article just because they exist — notability on here takes the form of a specific achievement that satisfies one or more of our inclusion rules, and is supported by reliable source coverage. This prosified résumé does neither. Delete with fire. Bearcat (talk) 07:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not at all notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG. --Jersey92 (talk) 01:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Also seems to be WP:RESUME. --Jersey92 (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 06:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joombas Music Group discography[edit]

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

Unsustainable list with vague criteria. Although the list holds itself out as recordings released by Joombas Music Group, it apparently includes any song peripherally connected to the label--such as "One Less Lonely Girl", a song performed by Justin Bieber and released on another label that the CEO of Joombas has a writing credit for.

Additionally, there are no independent sources cited, and the underlying label is not a notable company. To top it all off, the editor who created the article, Josephyangjoombas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), has a conflict of interest. —C.Fred (talk) 21:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The comment below was placed at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion by Josephyangjoombas: Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand the reason why this page has to be deleted.. We've only listed all the works that our company/CEO Hyuk Shin took part in. Joombas Music Group discography page was made in order to list all the works we've done for people to know what kind of songs we produce and write. Although our company does not OWN the song anymore, all we have listed are the songs we took in part of (producing and writing). Joombas Music Group is a well-known production company in South Korea producing EXO - Growl (Multi Platinum). We not only produce and write songs but we have released our very own singer Dean (South Korean singer). As of right now, we only have listed the works we've took part in (WE DO NOT OWN THE ARTISTS LISTED. WE ONLY HAVE LOYALTY FOR ALL THE SONGS LISTED). But according to @C.Fred, we are NOT allowed to even list any of our work unless our label owns the singer.. Instead of deleting our page.. I wish you guys could just help us fix our problem with references and citations. Instead of deleting our page without specific reasoning. Josephyangjoombas (talk) 21:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Josephyangjoombas, welcome to Wikipedia. It looks like the list you've created duplicates a list we already have at Hyuk Shin#Discography, and we don't allow external links to YouTube within articles. Could you contribute to the existing list instead? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand the reason why this page has to be deleted.. We've only listed all the works that our company/CEO Hyuk Shin took part in. Joombas Music Group discography page was made in order to list all the works we've done for people to know what kind of songs we produce and write. Although our company does not OWN the song anymore, all we have listed are the songs we took in part of (producing and writing). Joombas Music Group is a well-known production company in South Korea producing EXO - Growl (Multi Platinum). We not only produce and write songs but we have released our very own singer Dean (South Korean singer). As of right now, we only have listed the works we've took part in (WE DO NOT OWN THE ARTISTS LISTED. WE ONLY HAVE LOYALTY FOR ALL THE SONGS LISTED). But according to @C.Fred, we are NOT allowed to even list any of our work unless our label owns the singer.. Instead of deleting our page.. I wish you guys could just help us fix our problem with references and citations. Instead of deleting our page without specific reasoning.

1. We are a notable company go search it up on Google. If you could speak Korean PLEASE go to www.naver.com and search us up. We are one of the top producing company. 2. We are a Label Company. We released a singer Dean (South Korean singer). He is also listed under our writer section under the name of Deanfluenza https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-A96vsgB1EM 3. You can go to our official website fore more details. www.joombas.com 4. If you would like a real prove of our company please come to our office or call us and we will be glad to talk to you. 5. If you Type Joombas on Wikipedia, you could find few things on there. We have not made our Joombas official Wiki page because we are currently working on the contents that will be uploaded on our page. Also, We have changed our company's name to Joombas Music Group from Joombas Music Factory. 6. Our CEO Hyuk Shin is well known in Korea for producing and writing songs and was a former singer. Therefore, many companies use his name instead of using our company's name Joombas. That is one of many company's marketing strategy. 7. if you could have a Korean Speaking person, please look through this website. Here are the some information about him. "신혁은 국내에서 생소한 작곡가이지만 지난 2009년 캐나다 출신 미국 팝 아이돌 스타 저스틴 비버와 공동프로듀싱한 곡 `원 레스 론리 걸`로 빌보드 차트 16위를 차지한 바 있다." List of Shin/Joombas work

Hi Ivanvector. Although it is Hyuk Shin's work, due to the fact that we have released a singer, we are trying to open up our record label company page. Many entertainments and record label companies have very similar or duplicate listings. We just want our audiences and fans to get a good idea of what kind of company we are. If All else fail could you please let me know in what ways could we make our company's page. thank you. Josephyangjoombas (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our standards for inclusion on Wikipedia are that a topic has significant coverage in reliable, independent published sources. When I search online for "joombas music" I only get results for K-pop fan blogs, user-submitted directories, and sites like SoundCloud, which don't meet our criteria for reliable sources. I understand that you want to raise the profile of your business, but Wikipedia is a poor platform for that, and I urge you to reconsider your marketing strategy. Please see Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion, and please especially read WP:FINANCIALCOI - if you are being paid to promote your product on Wikipedia you are violating our Terms of Service and may be blocked from editing.

This topic is not my area of expertise, so I am adding some tags here to attract attention from editors who might know more about this topic and be of more help to you. I would suggest that since Joombas is related to Hyuk Shin that you can expand the section which already exists in that article, but I strongly advise you to read the links above to familiarize yourself with our site policies.

Not to scare you - I do hope you stick around, but please be careful. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not get paid to promote this company. Although I may be part of the company, I volunteerly did this work.. you could call in and ask our company boss. I was suprised by how amazing they were, I was hoping people could learn more about this company. I'm just an intern very in love with kpop and music industryJosephyangjoombas (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you guys wish to delete it, it's okay. i give upJosephyangjoombas (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: Josephyangjoombas just deleted all of his comments from this page.[1] —C.Fred (talk) 00:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I restored the comments that had already been responded to. They can strike through if they want, but they're not entitled to blank discussion that others have joined. postdlf (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sep7agon[edit]

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

Yes it is a disambiguation page, but the only 2 disambiguations on this page do not have pages of their own. Essentially, it is a page which only consists of dead links Rswallis10 (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Red link disamigation. - Variation 25.2 (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete neither entry have an article or meet MOS:DABRL or MOS:DABMENTION. Boleyn (talk) 10:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Boleyn. bd2412 T 15:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 06:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DJ NYK[edit]

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

References are mostly passing mentions or name-drops, a few interviews and only one (maybe two) decent in-depth sources. Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Primefac (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DJ NYK is a well known DJ not just in India but across the world. A quick google search will tell you more about him. Sharing some more articles that talk about his stature and influence in the industry. Wearhaus Featured Artist Interview : http://blog.wearhaus.com/2015/06/08/dj-nyk/; Pro Sound Systems Feature Article - http://pdfsr.com/pdf/dj-nyk-pro-sound-systems-magazine-interview; Electronyk Academy Feature Article - http://www.indiandj.in/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/DISC-JOCKEY-JUNE-JULY-MAG-2014.pdf ( Its on page 43). We haven't written anything about my academy on the wiki page yet . This should be a good enough proof i guess. Disc Jockey Magazine Cover Story - http://djnyk.com/images/DJ%20Mag%20Snippet%201.jpg. Prateekshah03 (talk) 1:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete basically per nom. It's not impossible that the academy (Prateekshah03, "your" academy?) is notable, but the sources here do not discuss the person in depth. That the article is atrociously promotional doesn't help either. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Drmies.Pincrete (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If the keepers had been able to find more than one single article they could have made a much stronger case for this subject passing the GNG. As it is, the deleters argue convincingly that he does not, and that he obviously does not pass NSPORTS either. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maika Polamalu[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, playing college football is not notable and rugby league career fails WP:RLN. Mattlore (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Weak keep -- Per WP:GNG. Two sources I found are from the Capital Gazette and Baltimore Sun. The Gazette article could maybe be put down to routine coverage (it's about his retirement from American college football), but the Baltimore Sun one seems to comfortably meet GNG. He's clearly the subject of the article, although it's obvious that his family connections have contributed to his notability. I see why Matt nominated this article for deletion, but can't confidently say this fails GNG. -- Shudde ^talk 02:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:RLN and WP:NCOLLATH. I found some brief coverage about his decision to retire and then return, but that appears routine and wasn't sustained (all similar to the Capital Gazette article linked above). The Baltimore Sun story was clearly only written due to the family connections, and notability is not inherited. Even discounting that, a single regional piece on a college athlete does not meet WP:GNG, as this is not substantial coverage. ~ Rob^Talk 09:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I gotta go with a keeper here for WP:GNG. I'm finding some good coverage, although I'm not entirely sure why. It seems that he achieved significant press for injuries/etc. Ours is not to judge the reason behind the coverage, only to take a position of if it is there. This looks beyond the scope of passing mentions in the press to me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Classic example of inherited notability. Clearly fails WP:NSPORTS, and the coverage only exists because he has a much more famous family relative rather than being notable in his own right. J Mo 101 (talk) 19:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Question can you provide a specific example where the coverage only exists because of the more famous family relative, or at least explain how you came to that conclusion? It seems like conjecture to me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - See the Baltimore Sun article linked above. I believe that's a very clear case of inherited notability, as they spend most of the article talking about his very notable family member. ~ Rob^Talk 13:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes and no. Yes, it's a human interest story because they are related, but they are also football players. And that one article doesn't negate the others found in a simple news search. It's not enough for me, but I can now see that it does have some weight.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kubichek![edit]

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

Article completely unsourced, No top 100 hits, no notable band members; does not meet notability guidelines for musicians Scr★pIron^IV 20:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--yeah, there's clearly no there there. No hits, no major record deal, no coverage... Drmies (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Rockfeedback reviews (external links misplaced in a "Reviews" section) may have been intended as references. Rockfeedback, however, appears to be self-published. Even if it is a reliable source, the reviews altogether would count as one source, notability-wise, since they're all be the same author. Otherwise the best source I could find was this scant eight sentence, 110 word review. The next three largest reviews [2], [3], and [4] put together only amount to seven sentences. Not enough depth to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Worldbruce (talk) 00:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Loja[edit]

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

Local and non-notable event, including years without contests Scr★pIron^IV 20:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability, no independent sources, just a provincial event. The Banner talk 22:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable pageant, Fails NEVENT & GNG/ –Davey2010^Talk 22:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 07:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kiyoshi Uchiyama[edit]

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

Lack of sources and information. Also, does not appear to be notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrDevilFX (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lack of sources is itself not a reason to delete (see WP:NRVE ). A Google Books search in English actually comes up with a lot: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], etc. There are also some results for a search of his Japanese name: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], etc. They definitely establish he was consul not only in Manila, but also to Seattle (and I think Bangkok), after being vice-consul in Shanghai. The problem is that not many offer significant information on him other than his actions or declarations as consul. I checked the Asahi Shimbun database and he is featured in a number of articles between about 1935 and 1940. WP:DIPLOMAT doesn't help much here. I think it comes down to whether the above--or any other sources--are sufficient for WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 07:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I spent some time on this article (OK, a lot of time), and I think the guy, as a diplomat, is absolutely notable. The mentions I found, the sources I added, don't discuss having tea with the local mayor--he was actively involved in policy and politics. There's a lot more material in JSTOR, by the way; I only had time to add what I found in one academic journal. There may yet be enough for a DYK, haha, but I'll need a Japanese reader to find some sources with basic biographical information. Drmies (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Lot of sources here. Nominator should have looked for them (including Japanese language sources) before nominating. They don't have much coverage, I agree, but they clearly prove that he was important diplomat, which means there are probably many off-line sources. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete under G12 by DGG. (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Bruckner Urtext Gesamtausgabe[edit]

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

Written like an advertisement, has no citations, and is copied directly from here Snood1205 (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Be Green Packaging[edit]

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

Non notable. The refs are basically press releases DGG ( talk ) 18:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as there is simply no good and significant coverage despite my searches (with the best results) here, here, here and here. One of the only and best things I found was a press release saying it was a leading company. SwisterTwister talk 20:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. my error, notable, withdrawing the afd DGG ( talk ) 22:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Limoneira[edit]

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

Not notable. The seemingly extensive reference are essentially all notices. DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain but maybe keep especially if it can be improved; my searches actually found quite a bit here ("one of the oldest citrus growing organizations of the West Coast" and lengthy book here saying that it was alongside Sunkist as nationally recognized), here, here and here. I also found this at Newspapers Archive with some information including again "now the oldest ongoing citrus operation in California", "world's largest lemon ranch", "largest single lemon 'orchard' in the world", "famous Limoneira" ranch' and "world's largest lemon producer"). This also said it once set a state record for deepest oil well at 18,734 feet in Ventura County and although this may not be universally significant for Wiki. This obituary for Milton Teague also talks about him including saying "one of the world's largest lemon ranches". All of the results were from searches at News, Books, highbeam, thefreelibrary and Newspapers Archive and there's probably more at individual news websites and such. DGG Your thoughts? SwisterTwister talk 20:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Listowel Celtic F.C.[edit]

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

Fails WP:FOOTYN. This is a club team in an local amateur league with no assertion of significance. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment::- CactusWriter, playing in Premier A division of the Kerry District League is a clear claim of significance. A claim of significance need not amount to a statement that, if sourced, would establish notability. In fact, a claim of significance need not pass any of the general or specialized notability guidelines, such as general notability guideline and WP:NFOOTY. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Wikicology. "Credible claim of significance" is a tricky concept and can be difficult to pin down sometimes, but I disagree with your assessment. The entire Kerry District League is a local amateur club league and therefore teams within it are not inherently notable per longtime consensus at WP:FOOTYN. Notability for an amateur club team in a non-national league requires some credible assertion beyond just being in a league. The page offers no such assertion of significance -- in that, being a member of an amateur league by itself (regardless if the division is called "premier"or anything else) does not assert any significance. Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spa Road F.C. or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classic F.C.. (I assume you have read WP:CCOS, but you may wish to review the entire essay, including the two-part test.) — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I probably do not have an idea of why you pointed me to an essay I'm very familiar with. That aside, I had said above that "a claim of significance need not amount to a statement that, if sourced, would establish notability". You seemed to be talking about passing WP:NFOOTY meanwhile, a claim of significance need not pass WP:NFOOTY. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The above discussion on the exact semantics of "claim of significance" is irrelevant, because the relevant fact is that this is a local amateur team, with no notability in terms of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFOOTY. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 17:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 14:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Current WP:FOOTY consensus is that clubs are notable only if they hagve participated in a national competition per WP:FOOTYN. No indication this club meets that standard, nor any indication of significant, non-routine coverage that would satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suhani Shah[edit]

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

Not notable. The two possible notabilities are a magician, b or author. As magician, the award does not sem to be major; as author, there is no evidence for importance of the book. There is no evidence except her own assertions that she significant in the other claimed fields. The refs to be found in Google News, tho some are from what passes as major papers, are either notices of barely-disguised press releases. DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails general notability guidelines, WP:NAUTHOR and WP:ENT. The article is overly promotional and makes unreferenced claims which if removed would leave very little material for an article. Jbh ^Talk 23:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Amsterdam Airport Schiphol. I think indeed that wider discussion should have taken place before this AfD--I don't want to call this a disruptive nomination, but it's...well, not very collegial. I'm going to redirect, awaiting wider discussion. Drmies (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amsterdam Airport Schiphol airlines and destinations[edit]

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

This information is already contained in the main body of the Amsterdam Airport Schiphol article, a separate page is not necessary. SempreVolando (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, not any more. I have reverted the revert of the sockpuppet. To my opinion the list is taking up to much space in the article about Amsterdam Airport Schiphol. Beside that, the destination are not really relevant for the article as they are not "connected" to the airport (not the airport flies there but an airline). The Banner talk 22:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Information regarding airlines and destinations are included in airport articles. If they belong in a separate article, a discussion should be started prior to the splitting. For the record, Schiphol is not the largest airport in terms of number of destinations, others exist with a large number of them and they should also have their lists split. I strongly suggest a discussion at WT:AIRPORT.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If I see the non-existing wide discussion at WT:AIRPORT (just the two of us), it looks like nobody is bothered by the split off. Nobody has voiced any opposition their (no support too). The Banner talk 09:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:SIZE and WP:NOTPAPER would suggest it's OK, but I recommend it's withdrawn (and redirected, for now), with a full RfC being raised. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If the two guidelines above apply we should consider the split of a number of airport articles. Still insist with a thorough discussion.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 15:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mainly per Jetstreamer. The page's information is already included in another article, where it better fits versus this separate page. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 21:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary content fork Kraxler (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bee Gallery Malacca[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. weak sources including trip advisor and a blog. LibStar (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--but this is a good candidate for CSD A7, and I have tagged it as such. Drmies (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Article cites no reliable sources and has no credible claim of significance. I searched Google and found no reliable sources discussing this subject. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Halpin[edit]

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

Notable for one event only. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The event wasn't really an event, it was a career, alebit a silly and childish one. There are sources before the trial. The trial coverage only existed because of this criminal's notoriety. Esquivalience ^t 17:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject of the article fails WP:NARTIST and nothing seemed to be notable outside the minor criminal case. WP:BIO1E may applies here unless there are enough evidence of notability outside the criminal case. Keep per smartse. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the nomination's claim that he is only notable for one event is incorrect as evidenced by substantial coverage from the BBC in 2009 (already included). londonist.com also covered him several times [21] [22] including in 2006 calling him "the capital’s most infamous tagger" and in passing The Guardian in 2007 said he was described as "the tube's most prolific tagger". Admittedly with only these sources notability is a bit shaky still, but with his arrest in 2011 receiving such widespread coverage WP:ANYBIO is met. It's tricky to argue over NARTIST when his work was classified as vandalism, but it's also worth nothing that Banksy (the most famous artist of the graffiti movement) produced a piece including his tag. At the time of his conviction The Guardian also noted that he was branded "king of taggers" by a graffiti magazine and there may be other offline sources available. SmartSE (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think the WP:BIO1E rationale used by the nominator is sustainable at this point. I believe SmartSE made some good points, such as citing the BBC article which was written two years before the event. I found this documentary which is entirely about the subject, uploaded in 2008 to YouTube and which supposedly aired in 2004 (but it certainly aired at some point before the arrest). Together with all the coverage related to his arrest, I think sufficient notability has been established to keep the article. Dontreader (talk) 06:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I have indeed deleted this article as promotional. Recently added content is nothing more than unencyclopedic content because improperly sourced and clearly intended to function as a portfolio/brochure. Drmies (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nucleus Premium Properties Private ltd.[edit]

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

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

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

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

I reviewed this and added it to my watchlist and after searching for sources (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary), there aren't any other solid third-party sources with the article reading more like a personal page or otherwise company-generated page and the sources are mostly primary and for minor awards. While it seems the author has had a few edits and good intentions, this company's article (Nucleus Premium Properties) was also previously deleted as G11 and A7. It's worth noting the author's other article is being nominated as well at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Bladimir (2nd nomination) (recreated after speedied and thus now renominated). SwisterTwister talk 17:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Wikikings Please do not remove the AFD tag from the article, until this discussion is completed. ~~Sulabhvarshney (talk) 10:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChunnuBhai (talk • contribs) [reply]

Just reverted them again. Primefac (talk) 11:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts blocked for Sockpuppetry. Mike V • Talk 15:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi , May i know on what basis an Afd notice is placed in the article ? I dont find any fault ! Nucleus is a prominent brand in Kerala,India. A famous builder and lot of news articles are available in their name . Few are placed below : http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/kochi/Nucleus-Bags-Lions-Club-Award/2015/06/18/article2871910.ece http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/kochi/Award-Given-Away/2014/09/29/article2454094.ece http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/kochi/Luxury-Villa-Project-at-Devalokam/2014/10/17/article2481344.ece http://news24hours.in/brand-icons-2014-driven-by-excellence/ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kochi/Realty-offers-Buyers-have-a-ball/articleshow/46161376.cms http://newsgulf.blogspot.in/2014/10/nucleus-premium-properties-pvt-ltd-is.html https://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/kochi-dream-bythe-sea/1/344764.html http://www.firstpost.com/business/desperate-builders-resort-to-more-freebies-to-sell-houses-but-buyers-are-just-not-biting-2100823.html http://m.newindianexpress.com/kochi/432426 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnabraham1 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 23 July 2015‎ (UTC)[reply] Johnabraham1, the reason for the deletion nomination is right up at the top of this page. I think SwisterTwister has done a fairly succinct job of explaining it. Additionally, please make sure you sign your comments with ~~~~ so that we know who commented. Primefac (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] SwisterTwister please respond to this , What is the problem with the wiki page , u can search in google or other search engines for Nucleus Premium properties , lot and lot of links with pop up , there are lot of news about the particular company . And they have been awarded Most Trusted Builder award by Times of India, hand over by Finance Minister of Kerala , They have got Lions club award , awarded by Chief minister of Kerala etc.. and you are telling that awards are minor awards ??? I can't understand that ! Johnabraham1 (talk) 15:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] Remove tag, Tag can be romoved once page is edited adding relevant news links Lionmaniac (talk) 09:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] Keep, This article can be alive in wiki once relevant links are attached to the project section. Wikipediarajav (talk) 08:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)— Wikipediarajav (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Accounts blocked for Sockpuppetry. Mike V • Talk 15:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi , May i know on what basis an Afd notice is placed in the article ? I dont find any fault ! Nucleus is a prominent brand in Kerala,India. A famous builder and lot of news articles are available in their name . Few are placed below :

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnabraham1 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 23 July 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Johnabraham1, the reason for the deletion nomination is right up at the top of this page. I think SwisterTwister has done a fairly succinct job of explaining it. Additionally, please make sure you sign your comments with ~~~~ so that we know who commented. Primefac (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister please respond to this , What is the problem with the wiki page , u can search in google or other search engines for Nucleus Premium properties , lot and lot of links with pop up , there are lot of news about the particular company . And they have been awarded Most Trusted Builder award by Times of India, hand over by Finance Minister of Kerala , They have got Lions club award , awarded by Chief minister of Kerala etc.. and you are telling that awards are minor awards ??? I can't understand that !

Johnabraham1 (talk) 15:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remove tag, Tag can be romoved once page is edited adding relevant news links Lionmaniac (talk) 09:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, This article can be alive in wiki once relevant links are attached to the project section. Wikipediarajav (talk) 08:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)— Wikipediarajav (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete, doesn't meet our notability criteria. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - Unremarkable builder lacking non-trivial support. Support consists of blogs, company website, and a few minor articles. Awards are local in nature. reddogsix (talk) 14:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Times of India is a leading Newspaper giant in India , The builder was awarded Most Trustable builder by Times of India and I found links about the buider in the article from Indian express , firstpost , India Today , economic times , news24hours , newskarnataka etc.. which are leading dailies in India. the article can be live. Mr.Wikiworld (talk) 11:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keeP important links about the builder found . page can be alive Ashwinpkrishna (talk) 12:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's not significant and better coverage from those sources though and most of it is primary and such. SwisterTwister talk 19:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Supporting the page to be live. Nucleus has every right to have a wiki page , if Skyline Builders has right to have page in wiki or Confidence Group or The Leela Palaces, Hotels and Resorts has right to have wiki page. Nucleus has every right to be in wiki with the current no: of links tht is seen in the page created. Mblazewiki (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but where's the better coverage that is needed? @DGG: I'd appreciate some sensible users commenting. SwisterTwister talk 21:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

5+ articles about the builder in the leading daily in India . This is what i found when i searched Nucleus Properties in New Indian Express .

I found all these links relevant and in support to keep the page live.

Mblazewiki (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI reviewed using the first comment in this discussion and found souces in news and highbeam etc

Highbeam : http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-34789204.html, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-3266019401.html, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-34789204.html

Google search : Keyword : "Nucleus Premium Properties" Mblazewiki (talk) 22:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Deletion templates on article and this discussion deleted by author. Gives one little confidence that she/he is here for the benefit of Wikipedia Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regardless of notability, the articles is a promotional listing of properties and nothing more, (e.g. "Nucleus Raymount is the latest lifestyle edition from Nucleus" ) and should probably have been deleted as G11. As for notability, the awards and the consequent articles are unsubstantial and basically PR. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Struck double vote. Changes made ; lets do a constructive discuss as of on what all grounds the article can be live ? Mblazewiki (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOGIntelligence[edit]

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

insufficient third party evidence for notability DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Remi Aiyela. SwisterTwister talk 17:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches found nothing aside from this and this. SwisterTwister talk 17:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. ukexpat (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remi Aiyela[edit]

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

Not notable. Probably placed by paid editor , along with articles for all their related publications. DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NOGIntelligence. SwisterTwister talk 17:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches found nothing good aside from this and this. SwisterTwister talk 17:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable person, fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Editor of a non-notable publication. Edwardx (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO ukexpat (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Analysis of links suggests there is indeed no reliable, in-depth, secondary coverage. Note that the last link added was this, where the product gets one sentence on page 6 of 11. Drmies (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JReport[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Links that establish notability:

http://siliconangle.com/blog/2015/07/10/jreport-reveals-its-secret-sauce-rhsummit/ http://www.streetinsider.com/Press+Releases/JReport+Excels+in+Reporting+and+Visualization+According+to+Butler+Analytics/10640102.html http://siliconangle.com/blog/2015/07/10/jreport-reveals-its-secret-sauce-rhsummit/

http://www.bbbt.us/events/bbbt-jinfonet-2015/

http://teich-communications.com/jinfonet-at-the-bbbt-oem-or-direct-a-decision-is-necessary/

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-328030418.html

http://www.itjungle.com/fhs/fhs070913-story09.html

http://www.itbriefcase.net/mapr-distribution-now-ships-with-apache-drill-1-0

https://drill.apache.org/blog/2015/05/19/the-apache-software-foundation-announces-apache-drill-1.0/

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-366790706.html

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-224625210.html

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-3040559651.html

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-338610193.html

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-217933657.html

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-217504805.html

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-310021890.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by FromLeIntenetz (talk • contribs) 17:38, 22 July 2015‎— FromLeIntenetz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Do they establish notability? I looked at them, and the kinds of things which I found were:some blogs; a page which states that it is a press release; a page which finsishes with teh words "Jinfonet CEO Bing Yao says in a press release", and has all teh appearence of being jsut a write-up of that press release (some other pages look rather like press releases, but don't, as far as I noticed, explicitly say so); various announcements of activities that the business has done at various times, such as a notice of the fact that an organisation is intending to renew a contract with JReport; a report that someone working for the company told people at a conference about some aspects of the company's work; a page on a site which says of itself that its "mission is to leverage business intelligence for industry vendors" (PR-speak for saying that its purpose is to promote businesses), and so on. Merely producing a large number of links to web pages that mention the company does not establish notability. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You say these news articles found on highbeam.com are press releases and/or likely to be content either paid for by the company or are outlets that have business motives, which may or may not be true, but more importantly I would like to know why is this page up specifically targeted for deletion for notability issues when there are plenty of company/product profile wiki pages just like it that are not up for deletion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birst

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaspersoft

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tableau_Software

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowfin_Business_Intelligence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qlik

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logi_Analytics

How does this page have any less notability from those? If you look at the references and citations on those pages it can also be similarly argued that those are press releases and promotion content. Also this page has been up for almost 8 years serving the needs of industry researchers without having notability issues, why now?

FromLeIntenetz (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FromLeIntenetz: Thanks for pointing out those other articles. You seem to be right in thinking that they are no more notable than JReport, at least as far as some of them are concerned. I have proposed three of them for deletion. Another one was nominated for deletion years ago, but there was clear consensus at the deletion discussion that it should be kept. The other two articles you mention may or may not be suitable for Wikipedia: it is not immediately obvious, and at present I don't have time for a detailed check. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. I agree that the links provided above consist of superficial, unreliable, or first-party sources and do not establish notability. @FromLeInternetz: You may wish to read WP:OSE in response to your most recent argument. "Other stuff exists" is not a good argument in deletion discussions, generally. Possibly those other articles should go too, although I haven't checked them. ~ Rob^Talk 21:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There were many links that were found through highbeam.com that was deemed notable enough to be published by news outlets. News outlets are not superficial nor unreliable. Just because the sources included statements made by employees of the company does not mean it is a first-party source or was written and promoted by members of the company in any way.

This page is a work in progress and is a page that is outdated and lacks information (company size, technological uniqueness etc). Is the topic so un-notable that it warrants deletion before the article can be fully updated with more current links? This is a topic of technology in which people in the business intelligence industry frequently do research on. Just because it does not have an academic paper written on it and uploaded to JSTOR does not mean it isn't notable in the industry.FromLeIntenetz (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Database Trends and Applications Magazine The article in question is the champion product of a company that was listed as one of the top 100 data companies on DBTA, an authority news site on the subject matter.

Gartner is the premier research and advisory firm on the subject matter. Publishing market research reports that are taken as authoritative and objective in many technology industries. Magic Quadrant is one such report. Here JReport is listed as one of the technologies objectively evaluated.

173.79.40.127 (talk) 01:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: 173.79.40.127 has made no other edits apart from this comment.

Delete - references are a blog, a dead link and a non-secure site that raises security concerns. No reliable sources given.

When the page is done, the sources listed here will be references. Please review those instead (Gartner, DBTA) and the various news articles. These establish industry notability. This is a B2B software and has strong notability in its field. FromLeIntenetz (talk) 13:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Firouz Gaini[edit]

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

Fails prof test, self-promotion by non-notable academic Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable academic.--DThomsen8 (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - I would say speedy delete as A7 because the claims of significance didn't seem credible to me, but someone else disagrees. It's a BLPPROD, as it has no sources, so I think that this AfD should be closed and the article proposed for deletion per BLPPROD. If it happens that a reliable source is added during the 7-day period, we can bring it back to AfD later. Gparyani (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason an article with a BLPPROD cannot be simultaneously taken to AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 08:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gparyani's comment does not look to me like an argument for keeping: it looks like an argument for deleting, but unnecessarily prolonging and complicating the process by closing this discussion and perhaps later starting a new discussion on the same issue. There is no earthly advantage in doing it that way: the discussion which has been started may as well be allowed to run its course. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not appear to meet WP:NACADEMICS criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 02:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The same user just created a copy of this article with a slightly different title (Firouz Gaïni), which I have redirected here. Apparently, this is the correct orthography (although it should not make much difference for searches) and if the article is kept, it can be moved there. --Randykitty (talk) 08:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tawan W. Davis[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO - despite the number of references, they not establish notability. ukexpat (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Tawan_Davis.--Elvey^(t•c) 23:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing especially notable - being able to find trivia about a person does not ensure notability. Here, "FreePressRelease" is specifically not a usable source as it states: "Free-press-release.com (FPR) is a website providing a press release distribution service." Almost all of the other sources fall under SPS as well. I do not address anything not in the current version of the BLP. Collect (talk) 13:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough or in depth enough coverage in reliable sources. Not notable. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PROF. The press release cannot be used for notability purposes.~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. For the record, a museum is absolutely an organization and covered by WP:ORG Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 06:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Batang Tiga Police Station Gallery[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. no evidence of significant coverage for this tiny gallery LibStar (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. ORG is irrelevant. A police station is a building. A museum is also a building, or at least a collection of artefacts. Neither is an organisation. James500 (talk) 11:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

fails WP:GNG regardless. You certainly like gaming the system and avoiding the most obvious way to establish notability through demonstrating sources. Instead long winded obfuscating is the way. LibStar (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know perfectly well that I was not arguing that the topic is notable. I was merely pointing out that an argument you advanced was irrelevant, in order to prevent you from confusing others. James500 (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

let's see if you can't resist with another response. LibStar (talk) 06:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Regardless of if WP:ORG applies or WP:GEOFEAT applies (as to buildings), I can't find any other secondary source references to this museum. The single one in the article isn't enough. If there are references in Malay that I can't find because I don't speak Malay, then those need to be brought up here. Otherwise, the article should be deleted. I would also remind LibStar to focus on issues and assume good faith (which the above comment does not do). agtx 17:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no secondary sources to establish notability.Pincrete (talk) 13:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No valid arguments or references provided that suggest this subject is notable. Drmies (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aseta Hungary[edit]

(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. The claim that he has played for the Solomon Islands is not supported by reliable sources, and probably refers to his appearance for the youth side, meaning it does confer notability per WP:NSPORT. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sounds like a hoax to me. Only reference I can find to this player off wiki is here as the scorer of the own goal in the Solomon Islands / NC game at the last Pacific Games, but that's it and checking the Team List he's not on it. any reason this shouldn't be speedied? Fenix down (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, likely hoax. Giant Snowman 17:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Delete - The player is playing in Putnok VSE. User:ÁgosLala ÁgosLala 15:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COmment - SOurces please that support WP:NFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 13:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stay - He played in the Pacific Games. He scored an own goal. here User:Galgah Galgah 15:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - then why is he not in the official Team List I already mentioned above? Fenix down (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Additionally, as this was an U23 competition, this does not make him notable per WP:NFOOTY even he did some how play. Fenix down (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the requirements for notablility as a soccer player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Even added sources are not deemed sufficient. Drmies (talk) 20:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Malacca Golf Gallery[edit]

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

I could not find any indepth significant coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 02:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More information about the gallery has been added (date of the gallery opening, detail on officiating ceremony, total number of exhibition stuffs etc), add other references (including Malaysia's online newspaper Utusan & Sinar Harian), add another article category. Chongkian (talk) 01:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Another reference has been added from Berita Harian online newspaper (Malay language). Chongkian (talk) 04:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Another reference has been added from Utusan Online newspaper (Malay language). Chongkian (talk) 08:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a couple of local stories and press releases occurring at roughly the same time do not signify notability.--Rpclod (talk) 04:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG....William 22:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Article is indeed terrible, and while the consensus to keep is not very strong, neither is the consensus to delete. Will close as "no consensus", to give BabbaQ a chance to get this up at DYK. Drmies (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Eurell[edit]

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

Wholly unsourced. Being a bent cop does not make a person notable (thankfully!). Candidate for speedy unless notoriety equates to notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So when does one become notable for Wikipedia?
There is a wiki page for Louis Eppolito and Stephen Caracappa
Another for Henry Hill,
Jon_Roberts,
Jimmy Burke do I need to go on?
There is a documentary on Eurell's life which is being adapted into a major motion picture by Sony.
I believe the page Ken Eurell is Wikipedia content.
A lot of these other pages should be deleted if that's the case.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Bolton NYPD (talk • contribs)
Delete. Don't see the notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Notoriety != Significance. Does not meet WP:GNG. ubiquity (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
WP:GNG"The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition"
How many outside sourcesare needed?
Variety - Sony wins film rights
Roger Ebert - the cop version of goodfellas
This is as notable as any other case cited above.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Bolton NYPD (talk • contribs)

Comment: One problem with the article is that it does not provide sources that indicate that Eurell is notable. If you have such sources, you should add them to the article. But of the two sources you mention above, the first does not even mention Eurell, and the second mentions him in passing. Both articles are about the movie, neither about the man. I too once appeared in a commercial documentary. That doesn't make me notable. ubiquity (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep:WP:NTEMP, At best a one-event notoriety for a drug bust, but nothing else indicates notability. — Maile (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to Weak Keep, to give the author and some mentor a chance to bring this up to at least a stub. — Maile (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Joe Bolton NYPD, would you consider starting an article on the documentary? It looks [23] notable enough to have a page. This former officer/informant is mentioned in the Daily News article I just linked to. The page can discuss the officers who were doing drug deals, at least as far as reliable sources exist. If the movie [24] moves ahead, it it will accumulate enough sources to merit an article. (Since films can be announced, even optioned for major $$, without being produced, I advise you not to start that article until significant coverage exists.).E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep The page is lousy. It desperately needs an editor. However, this rogue cop, turned informer, who then was portrayed in a documentary, and now may feature as a character in a major motion picture is WP notable because of the amount of coverage that comes up in a search. See links in my last comment, plus: [25], [26], [27], [28] there's lots more. Also, Eurell is far from shy, he seems to be trying to cash in on his notoriety [29]. In fact, he may actually be User:Joe Bolton NYPD. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Remember WP:BEFORE. Granted, this article was improperly formatted and had absolutely no sources. I'm not sure what the nom should have done. flagged it for a few days to see if the author could figure it out? Hook him up with a mentor? Perhaps point him to teh suggestions on his talk page about how to create an article? I may be out of line, and this , of course, appeared ot be an attack on a individual. But I'm not persuaded that blasting newbies with both barrels is the best way to grow Wikipedia. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:PERP criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 02:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per E M Gregory. James500 (talk) 10:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - definitely notable per WP:GNG. However article needs to be shaped up. However AfD is not a clean-up service. We dont nominate notable article for deletion simply because they are not in an OK condition at the moment. --BabbaQ (talk) 10:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale for my !vote is that the subject is not notable. The only two references set forth above (and not in the article), only peripherally mention the subject and are not sufficient to support notability. Further, the subject does not meet either criteria set forth in WP:PERP. Much of the rationale set forth by some of the !votes above, are based more on invalid "other stuff exists" arguments.--Rpclod (talk) 10:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Korikossa Atakpame[edit]

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

Although the stadium does exist, the very existence of the soccer club is questionable, as the article contains no references whatsoever and a simple google search returns nothing. The claimed stadium is also the venue of another Atakpame based club, Ifodje Atakpamé. The bottom template is irrelevant with pertinence to the club. PotatoNinja^{(Talk to me!)} 12:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - I can find reference to a team from Atakpamé playing in the Togolese second division called Ifodjè d’Atakpamé, but nothing under this name. I don't believe this is a hoax, more a case of an editor producing articles of low quality that over time have proved difficult to verify, see this and this by the same author as examples of current AfDs mistakenly seen as hoaxes due to the paucity of sources in English. Whilst there may have been a club of this name playing in the second division six years ago when this was created, they are either not there now or they have changed their name. either way, it is difficult to support the retention of an article on those flimsy grounds, particularly when there are no real sources in the article. Fenix down (talk) 13:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Thanks Struway, I overlooked that mention. Happy to change to keep as sources show that the club has played and progressed a reasonable distance in a top national cup competition at least once. Fenix down (talk) 07:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : RSSSF does confirm its existence and participation in the 2004/05 Togolese Cup, but I can't find anything else for this one. It's not listed in the current top two divisions at the Togo Federation website, which the "hoax" Espoir FC de Tsévié is... I agree with Fenix down that these creations aren't hoaxes, although for some perverse reason the squad lists (rosters) do generally seem to have been invented. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 14:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Fenix down and good work by Struway2 this shows the club did play in the 2004/05 Togolese Cup a National Cup competition.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eltjo Haselhoff[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:BIO Kleuske (talk) 12:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also this website suggests WP:COI issues as it shows that Peghead (talk · contribs) and Eltjo Haselhoff are one and the same. Kleuske (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately but draft/userfy if wished as my searches found nothing to suggest better sources. SwisterTwister talk 04:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the notability requirements for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Extensive analysis of sources is only partly rebutted, and that rebuttal was in turn countered. Subject is deemed not to pass the GNG or FOOTY. Drmies (talk) 20:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jérôme J. Dufourg[edit]

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

Individual fails WP:FOOTYN as has not played in or managed in a fully professional league. Subject also fails GNG due to lack of significant reliable coverage. More concerningly, a cursory review of the article would give the impression that he has in fact been the subject of multiple articles on his achievements in African football. However, a review of these sources (which I outline individually below) shows that in the vast majority of cases either the subject is mentioned only as an individual through which quotes about an unrelated matter are conveyed or indeed do not mention him in any form whatsoever.

I have no doubt that the positions held by the subject have actually been held, what I do doubt is that there has been any genuine significant coverage about his career to a degree that would satisfy GNG.

NB - It should be noted that I have brought this straight to AfD as the article came to my notice after I had cause to block the creator (who is also the article subject) and as such I felt it appropriate to ensure there was opportunity for wider discussion on notability.

I outline here my concerns about each source provided:

Source 1 - Is a primary source linking to the subject's dissertation, this does not establish notability.

Source 2 - FIFA document providing a very brief c.v. Confirms participation on official FIFA course. No guideline indicates that graduation from this course makes a subject inherently notable. Insufficient substance to satisfy GNG.

Source 3 - Does not mention the subject at all.

Source 4 - dead link, from the article title it does not seem likely that this is a source providing significant coverage about the subject.

Source 5 - Contains a quote from the subject but is not actually about the subject in any way. Could not possible be considered to support GNG.

Source 6 - Does not mention the subject at all.

Source 7 - Does not mention the subject at all and is in fact the same source as source six under a different title.

Source 8 - Does not mention the subject at all.

Source 9 - Does not mention the subject at all.

Source 10 - Does not mention the subject at all.

Source 11 - Does not mention the subject at all.

Source 12 - contains brief quotes from the subject, but the article is explcitly about a sponsorship deal for his club and not the individual at all.

Source 13- contains brief quotes from the subject, but the article is explcitly about a sponsorship deal for his club and not the individual at all.

Source 14- contains brief quotes from the subject, but the article is explcitly about a sponsorship deal for his club and not the individual at all.

Source 15 - Does not mention the subject at all.

Source 16 - a very brief article on a charitable donation by the subject. Insufficient for GNG.

Source 17 - Very brief article on his sacking. Insufficient for GNG.

Source 18 - coverage of his appointment as marketing director. This is not a position within a football federation that makes a subject inherently notable per WP:FOOTYN. In fact this source should be disregarded in terms of notability as there are elements that are word for word identical to this enWiki article so cannot be considered a reliable secondary source.

Source 19 - Does not mention the subject at all.

Source 20 - Non-english source, but does not appear to discuss the subject at all.

Source 21 - contains quotes from the subject, but this source is about sponsorship of the Rwandan football federation, not the article subjectin any way. No mention of the subject work in this sponsorship deal, he is just acting as a spokesman for the federation.

Source 22 - medium length article on the subject's banning from Kenyan football. Could support GNG if other coverage could be found on different topics that would not be subject to WP:BLP1E.

Source 23 - not useful for GNG as a source written by the subject himself. Inherently unreliable.

Source 24 - lengthy interview with the subject, however, not suitable for GNG as the interview is not actually about the subject but on corruption in African football. Nothing of note is said about the individual himself.

Source 25 - Does not mention the subject at all.

Source 26 - not useful for GNG as a source written by the subject himself. Inherently unreliable. In fact this is a potentially libellous article containing a number of very serious allegations and should probably be removed from enWiki anyway.

Source 27 - contains quotes from the subject but these are about alleged corruption by a Kenyan football official, they do not provide any significant information about the subject that could support GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 12:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In anticipation of debate that may occur, it should be noted that the article creator Didje83 is the subject of the article, as can be confirmed here. Fenix down (talk) 12:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I could agree with you on your concerns with the sources and something can definitely be done to improve on that, but the subject of the article is notable enough in my opinion. He's worked at a professional football club and currently at Rwanda's football association, and has been a board member of the Kenya Footballers Welfare Association, which is the Kenyan equivalent of the Professional Footballers' Association. Jérôme de Bontin, the current GM of the New York Red Bulls, also holds a BA in Economics and has held similar positions to Jérôme Dufourg in different organisations, so I don't see how this article is any different in that sense. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 14:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - but he didn't work at a FULLY professional football club, so that doesn't make him inherently notable per WP:FOOTYN. Why does being on the board of the KFWA make him inherently notable? Where is the coverage of his actions in this role that would show GNG? How is he comparable to Jérôme de Bontin? That individual has held senior board positions at a number of fully professional clubs. There is nothing in his career that makes him inherently notable by any guideline, so we are reliant on GNG and as I have shown, almost nothing in the article actually mentions the subject. Can you show additional sources not currently included that show GNG? Fenix down (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would imagine holding a senior position in a nation's topmost trade union for footballers (professional and otherwise) would make him inherently notable, but that's just my opinion. Anyway, Source 1 and Source 2 are interviews he's had with independent sources that cover/include his personal experience in the positions he's held in Kenya and Rwanda as well as other issues related to football, though not necessarily on his personal life. They are definitely secondary sources, definitely provide significant coverage, are reliable (in my opinion; the sources have never been known to produce libel or copy info from other sources) are independent of the subject, and I have reason to believe they're presumed. Couldn't find sources that cover his time with KEFWA though, so a "Citation needed" would probably apply there. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 15:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See this is the problem, in both those interviews, theres is nothing about, him that could really be added to the article, one is about corruption in Kenyan football and the other is about the Rwandan football association. Where are the sources that discuss him specifically? I can't find any. Also not sure how your comment about him being notable because he held a position in a supposedly important trade union with your inability to find any sources detailing his actions whilst in that post hangs together! Fenix down (talk) 15:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability; furthermore this is a promotional article created by an editor who had admitted to being a colleague of the subject. Giant Snowman 17:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 20:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolf Hasse[edit]

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

Delete: thoroughly non-notable as soldier or racecar driver or anything else (not to be confused with Rudolf Hess, of course). Quis separabit? 12:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I should have thought a Grand Prix winner was notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NMOTORSPORT #1. Unclear why the proposer says he's "thoroughly non-notable". Have you checked German sources from the 1930s and 1940s? Even in more recent texts, Google books snippet view shows quite a few mentions of him. Colapeninsula (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merged to Biggleswade Town F.C.. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 06:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Biggleswade Town F.C. seasons[edit]

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

PROD deleted without explanation, so this is a procedural AfD. Biggleswade Town play at far too low a level of the English football pyramid to warrant this article. – Pee Jay 12:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Pee Jay 12:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Far, far to low a team to warrant such a list. None of the seasons included in the list would be eligible for a standalone article per WP:NSEASONS and therefore it is hard to see why a list which is essentially an aggregation of season data is notable. No indication of significant, reliable coverage of this club's season by season performance to see them as an exception. Fenix down (talk) 12:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Creating those articles, I was guided by List of Margate F.C. seasons article, featured one. As you can see, Margate is just typical non-league club without Football League history, remarkable cup runs or anything. So, reliable sources similar to ones used in Margate article may be found for any of the clubs of this level. So, I am confused by the decision to put this article into PROD while we have such examples. The other way is to put Margate's list to AfD, of course. But this is truly disappointing situation, when editors see the articles they thought must be exemplary after some time become unacceptable. Martinklavier (talk) 13:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - you may wish to refresh your knowledge of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and its appropriateness as an argument in deletion discussions. Additionally, although Margate are by no means a big club, they still play several levels above Biggleswade, have done for decades and have made regular appearances in the FA cup proper. Finally, a significant proportion of this list is already contained within the parent article, so I am not sure there is justification for a fork that does not really add a great deal of content, particularly when it contains no sourced prose and indeed no references to indicate the notability of the subject of the list. Fenix down (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - i Would like to note that these teams played two previous seasons at the SAME level. Obviously, Margate is bigger, but i cant see the clear criteria to divide clubs into suitable for an article and unsuitable. The history of Biggleswade on this level is short, so i can accept your arguments, but it will lead us to separate discussions about every 7th tier club.Martinklavier (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I intend to nominate all similar articles for clubs at that level, assuming they don't satisfy notability in some other way, but I thought this AfD would be a good litmus test for others. – PeeJay 19:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Worth noting that Margate have played in what is now the National League, a national level of the league system. Biggleswade have only ever played in regional leagues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 17:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Biggleswade Town F.C., where this has been added. Peter James (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Although there is some disagreement about the notability of her political position, she meets clearly WP:GNG, as seen in the in-depth coverage in multiple sources added to the article during this discussion. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Philippa Roe[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Ms Roe's fame rests on two considerations: she is a senior local politician (head of Westminster Council) and she is seeking to become the Conservatives' London Mayoral candidate. WP:NPOL says local politicians are not generally considered notable, so I feel the former is insufficient notability. WP:NPOL also says that merely being a candidate (and Roe is merely a candidate to be a candidate) is insufficient notability.

The article currently cites 6 articles. Two are Westminster Council pages, and one is a party blog. That leaves 3 independent, reliable sources. Two are local papers: the Ham & High is a very local paper, the Evening Standard is a more significant publication, but still local in that it's London only. Most recently added is a Telegraph article, a national newspaper which could be argued to demonstrate WP:GNG. However, it seems to me that this article is about Roe's candidacy and the usual policy is that such material is better covered on the Wikipedia article about the election concerned. What we don't have is a body of work about Roe generally that would satisfy WP:GNG. More articles about her Mayoral candidacy are probably out there, but (unless she wins, which seems deeply unlikely) these should be covered on the London Mayoral election race or on a new article about the Conservative selection for a candidate (we already have such an article for the Labour selection). There is no reason here, as I see it, for an article specifically on Roe at this time. Bondegezou (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, London Labour Party mayoral selection, 2015 is the Labour selection article. I would be happy to see a London Conservative Party mayoral selection, 2015 article incorporating citations and content from the current Philippa Roe article. Bondegezou (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would consider that the leader of a council as significant as Westminster was notable, although ordinary members wouldn't be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the nom, "she is a senior local politician (head of Westminster Council) ". This is Westminster, not East Grinstead. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:NPOL gives notability to "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." (Emphasis added.) I do not see significant press coverage for Ms Roe beyond her candidacy, which would be better covered under the relevant election article. Bondegezou (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, now you're just being silly. "Leader of Westminster Council 'not notable' declares Wikipedia, owing to lack of press coverage". That's a story to run alongside the "Liberal mole inside Wikipedia blocks Grant Shapps" ones. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Bondegezou. Saw this article -all of it written yesterday -as a clear attempt to use Wikipedia to boost a specific candidate who doesn't meet notability criteria. Can always reinstate if she wins. JRPG (talk) 11:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The acid test is simply that of WP:GNG, significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. All notions of someone's standing in the world are beside the point, but it would be pretty hard for the Leader of an important city council to escape notability. I created the article, and I am not the least bit interested in whether the subject is selected to fight the London mayoral election, and indeed I only added a mention of it as an afterthought. In any event, my motivation is irrelevant. If Bondegezou would like to see more sources, I am happy to add them. Moonraker (talk) 09:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you for your work on the article to date. If you have further sources, it would certainly be helpful to add them -- thanks. I cannot see how the article currently meets WP:GNG on the existing sources for the reasons I gave above. Bondegezou (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- More comment Moonraker has done a great job adding several more citations and people should re-visit the article. Personally, I remain of the opinion that, while this new material is beneficial, Ms Roe still does not meet WP:GNG. As far as I can see, only the Standard, Telegraph and West End Extra article are about Ms Roe rather than mentions, i.e. meet WP:GNG criterion #1. The three articles that are substantially about her are about her bid to be the Conservative Mayoral candidate and precedent is clear here that candidacies are better covered on an election article. Bondegezou (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply Thanks for your kind words, Bondegezou! The nub of WP:N is not importance but verifiability, that's the nature of the threshold to be met, and in this case all the information in the article can be verified from reliable sources independent of the subject. It might help if you could give us a link to the policy you have in mind on candidates, but I doubt if it will be pivotal. From memory, I think there is a presumption that politicians holding national and international offices (including members of parliament) are inherently notable by way of the office they hold, so that in their cases the GNG principle is rather beside the point. Clearly, that presumption can't apply to candidates for such offices, or someone could become notable just by collecting ten signatures and paying a deposit. All the same, even a mere candidate for office is notable if he or she complies with the verifiability principle of the GNG, as (I suggest) Philippa Roe does here. It is also arguable that the Leader of a major city council might be the holder of a significant office, but I don't need to rely on that. Moonraker (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Reply I wouldn't say that the nub of WP:N is verifiability. Verifiability is a necessary but not sufficient condition for something to warrant an article on it. WP:N makes this distinction between "how suitable a topic is for its own article or list" and "Wikipedia's policies regarding content" (i.e. "Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons"). Notability guidelines for politicians confer notability on "international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature"; Ms Roe does not meet any of those criteria. Leading a borough council, one of 33 in London, is below the "sub-national" threshold. The guidelines then go on to include "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." and notes "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article"." In other words, Ms Roe needs to meet WP:GNG, which means ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail". As I say above, I only see three articles specifically about Ms Roe and all three relate to her (since failed) candidacy. The idea that candidates are better covered on an election article stems from WP:1E. That said, your work on the article has certainly moved it closer to notability and I concur that leading a borough council is of some significance. Bondegezou (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Note that we do consider city councillors in large cities to be inherently notable. I don't think all London's borough councillors are notable (although members of the London Assembly are), but I think the council leaders probably are. It's a senior position. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I think the equivalent of those city councillors we consider notable are London Assembly members, that is representatives to a provincial (i.e. city-wide) legislature. Roe is not a city councillor in that sense: Westminster City Council is (despite the name) a borough council representing only 1/33rd (approx.) of London. We don't consider all borough councillors notable. Yes, being council leader is different to just being any councillor, but nothing in WP:NPOL refers to that distinction. (Perhaps that is something to take to a discussion on revising WP:NPOL.) By WP:NPOL, Ms Roe needs to meet WP:GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        England doesn't have provincial or sub-national legislatures, so that clause in WP:POLITICIAN doesn't apply. The London Assembly is no more a sub-national or provincial legislature than are county councils, and county councillors are not generally considered to be inherently notable. The city councillors in other large cities like New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, etc, are also considered to be inherently notable, although those councils are beneath sub-national level (since that would be the state legislatures). See what I mean? These are local, not sub-national, politicians, yet they are considered to be inherently notable through virtue of their office, so why shouldn't borough council leaders? In other words, there are no guidelines governing any of this and it's all down to perception and opinion. It is true that there is officially no inherent notability on Wikipedia, but as any of us who've been here any length of time know, that really is just dogma and there certainly is considered to be de facto inherent notability for various groups. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But we have WP:NPOL and it's quite clear. Local politicians are not considered inherently notable. You can't read WP:NPOL any other way. The obvious parallel to a Los Angeles councillor is a London Assembly member, which we do consider notable, not a Westminster Council member. (For comparison, LA councillor is a full-time job paid $178,789 per year; Westminster councillor is not a full-time job with no actual salary, just an allowance, although the Leader of the councillor does get more, a grand total of £44,000 per year.) Anyway, WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't relevant: it never matters in a deletion discussion that other articles exist. We have to judge this one against policy and guidelines. Bondegezou (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

London Assembly members and LA councillors are also local politicians under WP:POLITICIAN, so you clearly are reading it another way! Should they be considered inherently notable? I'm not sure, but I know what would happen if I proposed they should be deleted! Should leaders of major British borough councils be considered notable? I believe that if we consider every councillor in a major city council to be notable then we should also entertain the possibility that leaders of other significant councils might be too. After all, these people are not infrequently granted CBEs and knighthoods. This would of course grant them de facto inherent notability under WP:ANYBIO, but if people in their posts are considered eligible for such high honours it suggests that the posts (and therefore by definition the holders) are considered pretty significant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The London Assembly fits with the phrase "provincial legislature" in WP:NPOL; Westminster Council clearly does not. London has a bigger population than Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland; Westminster council does not. I think there's a clear difference between the London Assembly and Westminster Council that is consistent with the wording of WP:NPOL. Otherwise, I refer you again to WP:OTHERSTUFF and if Ms Roe is knighted, then that will be relevant, but she hasn't been. Bondegezou (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The London Assembly fits with the phrase "provincial legislature" in WP:NPOL." No, sorry, but it does not. If it is a "state or provincial legislature" then so is a county council, and they are clearly not (and have been held not to be at AfD). London's population is irrelevant. If we're talking population, note that Westminster has a population greater than some sovereign states or provinces whose political leaders do clearly meet WP:POLITICIAN. Incidentally, if Ms Roe is knighted I shall be very, very surprised...unless she's had a sex change of course! However, my point was that these offices often do attract high honours, which suggests that the authorities do regard them as notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further reply The point of WP:NPOL is not to over-ride the GNG and make topics non-notable which comply with it. In any event, the relevant line of WP:NPOL is this "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." (That wording is rather foolish, because it suggests that "press coverage" is better than information from more reliable sources.) In this case, the press coverage alone is plainly significant, and most of it is nothing to do with the London mayoral election of 2016. The idea that having applied for selection as a party candidate for an election somehow makes a politician non-notable will not run. If Philippa Roe were a rapper or a banjo-player and had been the subject of articles in several national newspapers, and if information about her were available in non-fiction books (including a parliamentary report), no one would seriously challenge her notability. The suggestion by Bondegezou here seems to be that local politicians are inherently non-notable, and it is absurd. The last bullet point of WP:NPOL spells out the position: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". " Moonraker (talk) 02:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply WP:GNG is clear that ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail". Most of the material cited in the article mentions Ms Roe in passing, but is not principally about her. Such is entirely appropriate and welcome for supporting information given in the article, but does not contribute to a WP:GNG argument. I only saw three articles that are chiefly about her, and all three were about her (since failed) mayoral candidacy. As per WP:1E, candidacies are better discussed in election articles if the individual is not otherwise notable. I do not see "Significant coverage" beyond her candidacy; reliable source coverage, yes, but not significant coverage. However, I recognise that my position here has not gathered consensus support(!) and, Moonraker, you have certainly greatly improved the article since I first nominated it. Bondegezou (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Rough consensus that the article just passes the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The High Learys[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. Lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Has a lot of sources but most are not reliable. AMRAP charts are not good charts. Band lacks sales, airplay, awards. Releases are not on "important" label. Touring lacks coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not going to vote as that is going to be my new policy I believe for articles I approve. I will comment and say this though. This was a borderline accept for me, going by the guideline that an article could survive AfD 50% of the time. The nogusta article and murdoch sources were the selling point for me, but just barely. Might still be a case of WP:TOOSOON. My concern is, if greater sources can't be found, that this page would face inherent bias in re-creation if it fails two AfDs. I would just ask either way that it be a soft delete. As the creation of it was done through the proper channels, and there's no reason that the page should be potentially salted. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BAND. I don't think it's much better than it was when deleted weeks ago, but agree with Sulfurboy that it does not need to be salted considering the circumstances of its re-creation. Doctorhawkes (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes: WP:Band#1: some of these are now in the article. Passes: WP:Band#4: national and international tours are now described and verified.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline keep per Shaidar. I'd have looked askance at the street press, but multiple city street press passes for me. And the rest of the new refs - David Gerard (talk) 11:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, whilst not the most clear-cut it does satisfy WP:BAND criteria 1 & 4. Dan arndt (talk) 07:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wynbrook[edit]

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

Just like King's Leigh (afd) this is an advert for a Dacland real estate development (both kindly provided by the same person). Like that article the subject lacks coverage in independent reliable sources.

Reference analysis:

http://www.wynbrook.com.au// - developer's promotional site for the development
"Top 10 fastest growing local populations in Australia" - about the suburb it's in, no mention of the development
http://www.wynbrook.com.au/lifestyle// - more of the developer's promotional site
http://dacland.com.au/our-communities/ - A page by the real estate developers
http://www.realestate.com.au/project-wynbrook-vic-wyndham+vale-600007375// - an online advertisement on Realestate.com.au for this real estate development
http://www.wynbrook.com.au/lifestyle// - more of the developer's promotional site
"Wyndham Vale Station" - Regional Rail Link page for the suburbs station, no mention of the development
"Wyndham Bus Network Overhaul Planned for 2015" - news article about the suburb, no mention of the development

Pure advertising from a shill. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatant advertising and nothing else.Doctorhawkes (talk) 11:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Would fail WP:NGEO, nothing particularly notable about it if it is considered a business. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too small to pass my standards, with only 650 lots. Bearian (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Benn[edit]

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

Not notable. There is a lack of coverage about Benn in independent reliable sources. The award won was not a major award. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete completely unremarkable career. Architects who have a Wikipedia article have almost always international coverage and multiple major awards. This one only has a minor award from the state branch of the national association. LibStar (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I conducted a Google search, but found no secondary sources with significant coverage [30]. Vanjagenije (talk) 02:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 06:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James A. Cusumano[edit]

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

Advert for individual lacking notability. Lacks notability independent of his band. Whilst this page looks impressive and professional it is actualy very ordinary. It's bombarded with refs to make him look important. Most of the refs do not mention him and are there to verify related facts.

eg "Holistic hotelier" section. Has 5 sentences. First two directly relate to him and are unsourced. The next three relate to the castle and are sourced. The sources are about the castle and do not mention him.

eg "Film career" section. Sourced to imdb (not a reliable source) and Lifetime (dead primary source). Only mention of him is a imdb listing as a executive producer. "After the sale of Catalytica Pharmaceuticals, Cusumano formed Chateau Wally Films to enable his wife," is not verified.

eg "Silicon Valley career" section. Entire section has no mention of him. First source is a press release with a short quote from him. Second source is a press release with no mention of him. IU don't have access to the third but it appears to be a routine acquisition announcement.

In all this padding there appears to be no independent reliable sources that have any depth of coverage about him.
The claim to fame as Royal Teens lead singer sounds impressive but is also misleading. He was not a member of the band that charted, only joining after they had originally broken up. He appeared in a band called Royal Teens that had none of the previous members. Noticably the Royal Teens own history does not mention him. And allmusic also does not mention him. (Much of the Royal Teens Wikipedia article comes from User:James A. Cusumano [31] and prior to this there was no mention of him).
This is a deceptively sourced bloated puff piece that needs to be deleted. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately as the page reads (unintentionally?) like a personal page and although it has several sources, my searches found none good aside from two HuffPost links and several links. SwisterTwister talk 04:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the nominator sums it up nicely, this is a promo advert without any reliable sources independent of the subject that would mention the subject, if all that which is claimed by the subject was true, then they would be remarkable, but still not notable, despite this. Kraxler (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 07:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exhibía[edit]

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

No indication of notability for this shopping app. Being the first to do something is not by definition notable, and it's indicative that most of the article is an explanation of what a prefunded bidding auction is. The sources here are one patent description for prefounded bidding fee auctions, where Exhíbia is not mentioned; two very brief writeups on review sites ; and one press release. Also note that a couple of different accounts and IPs have been trying to advertise this in various Wikipedia articles, so there does seem to be a concerted attempt to use WP as a marketing platform for the app. bonadea contributions talk 10:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Industry Needs a Gate Keeper http://www.pennyauctionwatch.com/2015/05/the-industry-needs-a-gate-keeper/ Wikipedia Editors are being bullies. Miko Lasso is a notable person in the bidding fee auction industry and a pioneer in the penny auction industry.

See first comment by PHOSITA Bobby James. In respect to the author’s statement, “In the history of penny auctions never once has any site owner said, “My site runs shills and bots.”” That is an inaccurate statement. Miko Lasso admitted it when he ran Bidstick and he continues to admit it and cite it as one of the reasons for his ridiculous prefunded auction model. - See more at: http://www.pennyauctionwatch.com/2015/05/the-industry-needs-a-gate-keeper/#sthash.NhKkHixL.dpuf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.80.137 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia editors are taking the side of bots and shills, and clearly are not on the side of development.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.80.137 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source does not show notability for Lasso - "notability" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, slightly different from what it means in the general language. We're looking for significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Please also note that even if Lasso should be shown to be notable, that doesn't mean that his company is automatically notable. Notability is not inherited. --bonadea contributions talk 19:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I have neither heard of this app nor this company in Finnish media that displays some undue coverage on everything related to social media and mobile phones. There ought to be at least some interview of Miko Lasso, if he would be notable. I could not find anything on him withing Finnish language sources. If he truly is a notable person in bidding fee auction industry, why not write about him out there? This app for sure is not notable. I would perhaps reconsider if Lasso appeared in Ylen aamu-tv or Helsingin sanomat, even though I frown upon these wiki-advertising apps. Ceosad (talk) 23:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not appear to meet WP:NSOFTWARE criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 03:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exhibia is the 74th hottest startup from Finland http://startup100.net/top-100. We just surpassed Zen Robotics who has raised more than $12M. We understand that Bonadea is from Sweden and cannot tolerate if Finns are doing better than Swedes, but please leave that out of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.80.137 (talk • contribs)

Delete: Wikipedia is not a repository of "hottest" startups or apps that are first to do something. Crucially, Wikipedia is not a platform for self-promotion. It's also a good idea to leave out remarks that suggest that national affiliations have something to do with editors' capacity here. If anything, referring to the company as "We" casts more doubt on an editor's impartiality. Delete per nomination. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 14:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talentum Finland wrote about Exhibia. Bonadea is just upset because he did't Win anything with his free bids. http://www.tivi.fi/Kaikki_uutiset/2015-04-14/Suomi-jyr%C3%A4%C3%A4-Euroopan-Red-Herring--listalla-3219717.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.80.137 (talk • contribs)

Just drop it. You are being too harsh towards her. I would have proposed deleting this app, if I had found out first there exists an article about it. Wikipedia is not a catalogue, and for sure not a sales catalogue, for every single obscure app that exists out there. Ceosad (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has pages for Dealdash, Quibids, Madbid and other penny auction sites. The currently running penny auction sites do not work without bots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.80.137 (talk • contribs)

Exhibia is the only Bidding Fee Auction App approved into the Facebook App Center. How is it possible that someone is trying to claim that it is not notable? WP:NSOFTWARE criteria specifically mentions. A computer program is notable if it meets any one of these criteria: It is discussed in reliable sources adweek as significant in its particular field facebook.

Penny auctions are considered prohibited content by Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/help/174908809241578/ Exhibia is notable enough for adweek and facebook but not notable enough for Wikipedia editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.80.137 (talk • contribs)

There is one reference to a brief mention in adweek in the article - it was there when the article was nominated and doesn't show any notability (it is not a discussion or in-depth coverage). Are there other adweek articles about the app? --bonadea contributions talk 11:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Miko Lasso former Filppula and I launched the first penny auction site in the United States called Bidstick.com.

2009, in a chat application on Bidstick.com I told my customers that the only way for us to fight collusion was by reserve bots. This chat log http://www.pennyauctionwatch.com/2010/01/is-bidstick-legit/ makes me Miko Lasso a notable person in the bidding fee auction industry. <Djbidstick> the bots were invented <Djbidstick> to protect us from mafia <Djbidstick> chat mafia <Djbidstick> theres never 2 bots <Djbidstick> on anything

2012 Prefunded bidding fee auction patent filed. http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=20130262257.PGNR.

2013 Amanda Lee writes about: Penny Auction Business Dilemma http://www.pennyauctionwatch.com/2013/11/the-penny-auction-business-dilemma-bidrail/

2014 Turku University of Applied Sciences hosts 140 person cross continent Exhibia bidding session. (search youtube for Exhibia bid engine testing, for recorded video.)

2014 Exhibia is approved to Facebook appcenter https://www.facebook.com/games/exhibia

2014 Exhibia meets with Google in Slush Helsinki. http://socialshoppingnetwork.org/2015/02/13/google-nods-positively-to-exhibia-and-ssn/

My name is Miko Lasso, I am notable person in the bidding fee auction industry and Exhibia is notable as bidding fee auction software. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.80.137 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If Miko Lasso is the person leaving comment using this URL and is also the founder of the subject, a significant conflict of interest exists. A significant amount of irrelevant and/or non-authoritative material has been posted and does not change my recommendation to delete the article.--Rpclod (talk) 11:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I Miko Lasso did not write the exhibia Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.80.137 (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Lee (ice hockey)[edit]

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

Career low minor-leaguer who fails WP:NHOCKEY. Mentions in reliable sources are all routine sports coverage explicitly debarred by WP:GNG. Ravenswing 23:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to be playing in the top Danish league right now. That may not be enough for WP:NHOCKEY but I think it is more significant (and suggests more potential for existence of sources, albeit possibly not in English) than just a career low minor leaguer. Rlendog (talk) 13:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And if anyone finds multiple reliable sources that satisfy WP:ROUTINE, I'll be happy to withdraw the nomination. Ravenswing 19:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ - playing in the premiere ice hockey league in Denmark appears to meet the first criterion of WP:NHOCKEY.--Rpclod (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't. Please see WP:NHOCKEY/LA. The Danish league is a relatively unimportant one ranked well back on the IIHF's table. Ravenswing 12:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ravenswing. While I agree with Rlendog that the subject is close to ice hockey notability, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and we can't assume the subject will achieve notability. Accordingly, I deleted my "weak keep" recommendation and replace with delete. Hopefully an author will userfy in the chance that the subject meets notability criteria in the future.--Rpclod (talk) 15:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Deadman137 (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't go beyond routine coverage, so fails WP:GNG. Comes quite close to passing WP:NHOCKEY (reserve on All-Star team of CHL for Criterion #4), but isn't quite there. ~ Rob^Talk 05:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, in order for Criterion #4 to be applied he would have had to be a first team all-star for the season, playing in an all-star game means nothing for the project. Deadman137 (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was noting that he was a reserve, not a first-team, so doesn't meat Criterion #4. Close, but no cigar. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Let me know if I'm misunderstanding how "all-star" is structured in hockey; I was assuming it was similar to gridiron football's structure. ~ Rob^Talk 02:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hockey, like most other sports, have all-star games, in which a small horde of players play. At the low minor league level, that doesn't generate any coverage. But -- again, like many other sports -- hockey leagues usually have a season-ending All-Star Team, comprised of the best player at each position. We judge that even at a lower league, someone judged a First Team All-Star (hence the wording in NHOCKEY) probably receives coverage which would meet the GNG. Ravenswing 04:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if I stepped on any toes, I was just trying to clarify how Criterion #4 has been interpreted in the past. Deadman137 (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spark (Yulia Volkova song)[edit]

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

Non notable single, Fails NMUSIC & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 21:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Waste Management (album), because it still had some information, but nonnotable on it's own. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No need to merge as there's already a line on the album which says "The third single, "Sparks", premiered on MTV Brasil on April 13, 2010. The song is the English version of "220". "Sparks" peaked at no. 1 on MTV Latin America charts and the video clip weekly charts of MTV BRAZIL." which to me is sufficient, The single-article only says when it was released which is already mentioned on the album article so thus there's nothing worth merging. –Davey2010^Talk 23:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of notability.--Rpclod (talk) 02:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. Azealia911 _talk 01:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 19:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert A. Weiss[edit]

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

No evidence of any special notability. Associate professor of an American University does not imply inherent notability and I see nothing else here that meets WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The references are all primary sources or links to articles he's been quoted in. No evidence of special notability. Macrowriter (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Weiss is a pretty common name and he doesn't seem to have a Google Scholar profile, but just searching GS for "Robert Weiss dermatology" will turn up a number of well-cited papers (386, 132, 123, 117, 111, 109, 105, 104, 85, 84, 80...). I know that clinical medicine is associated with higher citation counts, but I think this is enough for notability. EricEnfermero (Talk) 07:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep He appears to meet wp:academics in terms of highly cited articles. There aren't any awards that I can see, and the web page of the organization he is said to be president of does not list officers or its board so that isn't easily confirmed. The sources aren't terribly strong, however. I see this as squeaking by. LaMona (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Tigers (TV Documentary)[edit]

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

Another in a growing network of articles created to promote to the work of Kamran Qureshi As I stated at the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power of the Sea, this 17-minute video fails WP:NFILM as far as I can see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created by me till todate have diversity in subjects like Motherly wisdom, living and dead personalities, good parenting, how to raise high performing children, young girls choosing their careers, human smuggling, emotions of transgender people, Army, Navy, Air Force, prostitution, music concert film and Importance of Maritime sector and so on... there is no promotion of any individual or company in my articles.

As part of wiki family, I respect all family members and their POV. Reference to my recent articles about Pakistan Army, Navy and Air Force, (Sons of the Soil, Power of the Sea, and Flying Tigers) as they are entirely different in nature, departments and operations and what I understand is, this is the reason why Avtek Media Group made separate documentaries and I have created separate articles as there is a need to justify with the subjects.

The Making show was made and named Har Dam Tayyar for TV promotions to explain audience the topics and importance of these documentaries. This is what article Har Dam Tayyar is saying. I recommend these articles should remain separate and all will have their separate notability. Trust me. Kind regards Talentforfilm (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Please note that Talentforfilm has been blocked as a promotion-only account abusing multiple accounts. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Talentforfilm. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No RS establishing notability, most sources are FB etc.Pincrete (talk) 12:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found nothing online other than Wiki mirrors and pirated video. The article itself provides only youtube links and no reliable sources.--Rpclod (talk) 03:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Bradley[edit]

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

Deleted prod. Subject of the article doesn't meet WP:PROF (associate professor), and Google Scholar does not show close to enough citations to meet WP:AUTHOR. No significant secondary source coverage to speak of. agtx 18:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Agtx Did you do follow any of the other kinds of approaches to verifying notability listed in WP:BEFORE, or did you just run a google scholar search? I ask because this dude doesn't look all that obscure or hard to source to me. Yes, the page needs improvement, sourcing, but AFD is not the place for that.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did, but I found almost solely primary sources. He's got some op-eds in a newspaper, bios at the organizations he works for ([32] and [33]), and some press release type articles ([34]). There is a puff piece and a C-SPAN interview, but I don't think that's enough. There is also an attack blog that I won't link to. I don't think this is about improving the page. I think this is about someone for whom we have basically no secondary sources, and who doesn't meet the guidelines for academics or authors. That said, I'm quite sure my Google search history is slated against showing me the kinds of results that Bradley would end up in, so if I'm missing something, I'd love to hear about it. agtx 15:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Certainly profiles at organizations he works for don't count for notability, but holding a place at a scholarly think tank like Acton Institute is an indication of some degree notability. Of course, one person's "puff piece" is another person's profile, [35] I would say that a profile like this in Black Enterprise goes at least half way towards establishing the WP notability of a young professor. I would say this [36] interview in the Christian Post goes the rest of the way. KeepE.M.Gregory (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here [37] he is in First Things evidence that he is being taken very seriously as a Christian thinker. I found both this and the Christian Post by googling his book titles; he has such a common name. I do think this AFD is a slam dunk. He needs a better article. don't they (almost) all.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really a mention though is it? The author of the piece just happens to be in a compilation of essays of which Bradley was an editor. I get the common name problem, and I see that Bradley's getting a little press (Black Enterprise and Christian post), but these are sporadic. I think we could go either way here, but if we're keeping out associate professors generally, I don't think this guy is any more notable than any other associate professor. agtx 19:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lot's of asst. profs. have pages; lots of full profs. don't. It's about how influential your scholarship is, but also about how much press coverage you get; especially profiles and in-depth interviews..

Just added another long author interview, in order to delete this article you would have to ignore Book TV, at least 2 long interviews in the Christian Post, each about a different book, the profile in Black Enterprise and a lot of coverage that comes up in searches of his name on news google, more or less demonstrating that he's a guy who gets called on by the mainstream press to comment when stuff happens in black communities.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The profiles that exist establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I will gladly userfy this article upon request, for the purposes of merging to Ulster, New York. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 06:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ulster Hose Fire Department[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG & WP:ORG, not a single source. Nothing notable Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable volunteer fire dept for small town —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to Ulster, New York. There is not even an allegation of notability for this small Upstate New York special district. This town is not large, and the main article could use more content. Bearian (talk) 13:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No~~thing~~ substantive indepth coverage secondary or otherwise.68.148.186.93 (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced run-of-theWP:MILL fire department, article is WP:OR, no in-depth coverage anywhere, fails WP:ORGDEPTH Kraxler (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 07:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aurion Legacy of Kori-Odan[edit]

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

Video game. No attempt to provide evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Czar's sources. Redirect to Kiro'o Games, the developer. Software article of unclear notability, but the dev. has somewhat better sourcing; being one of only a handful of Africa-based game development companies is a point in favor of notability, and redirects from titles to developers a common solution in this case.Dialectric (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The game has significant coverage. E.g.,

http://www.polygon.com/2015/3/30/8297515/africa-draft

http://www.polygon.com/2015/5/15/8613787/african-action-rpg-aurion-signed-by-publisher-offers-new-gameplay

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/11/14/aurion-legacy-of-the-kori-odan/

http://indiegames.com/2015/03/aurion_legacy_of_the_kori-odan.html

http://indiegames.com/2015/04/aurion_legacy_of_the_kori-odan_1.html

http://kotaku.com/not-every-fantasy-world-has-to-be-european-1685083542

I usually recommend searching the vetted video game reliable sources custom Google search before going to AfD. Also, since there are pages for this game's dev, it might have been a good idea to try even redirection as a minimum before bringing the topic to AfD. Anyway, given the above sources, I recommend withdrawing the nom. @RHaworth and Dialectric – czar 17:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Vancouver School Board. Davewild (talk) 07:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Sandford Fleming Elementary School[edit]

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

Non-notable elementary school, fails WP:GNG. Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, I propose a delete and redirect to the relevant school district. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:ORG, no coverage at all, no notice. Esquivalience ^t 16:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Vancouver School Board as is usual in such cases. Also do the same to the dozen or more other linked elementary schools listed in that article. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Vancouver School Board per SCHOOLOUTOCMES. –Davey2010^Talk 00:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 06:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karielys Cuadros[edit]

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

Non-notable, participant in a non-notable pageants. Fails WP:BLPNOTE Flat Out (talk) 01:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing more to be said.--Rpclod (talk) 04:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like in-depth coverage here, coupla paragraphs here, several photographs prominent here, a mention here, another mention here, a paragraph here, another mention here, several photos in this article here, and in-depth coverage here. That said, the article (if it stays) should be only a short paragraph long, if that. Beauty contests are a big deal in Latin American countries such as Venezuela, there is coverage to meet the WP:GNG, but let's keep it short.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG, see the sources in the previous post, there seems to have been some controversy about her not wiining the pageant what triggered more coverage than usual of a runner-up. See also this, this (spells "Cuadro" without s), this, this and so on... Kraxler (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Tourism International Venezuela[edit]

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

Non-notable pageant - fails WP:NEVENT - promotional tone, no depth of coverage in secondary sources Flat Out (talk) 01:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references suggest any notability. This seems like WP:SELFPROMOTION.--Rpclod (talk) 04:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete another non notable pageant article. Only has primary sources. I'm surprised pageant article lover hasn't appeared here to argue keep. LibStar (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable pageant, Fails NEVENT & GNG/ –Davey2010^Talk 22:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caffeinated Concert Tickets, The Unicorns Have Got to Go, Mordecai and the Rigbys[edit]

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

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

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

The pages were redirects, and have recently been created as articles of their own. They're non-notable episodes of Regular Show, and I believe they should be either deleted or redirected to List of Regular Show episodes or Regular Show (season 1). Previous discussion for Caffeinated Concert Tickets, which was originally an article that got redirected: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caffeinated Concert Tickets. TVShowFan122 (talk) 12:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anyone is free to redirect. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 06:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michele DeCesare[edit]

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

Actress had one role, appearing in six episodes of a TV show her father created. No other roles according to IMDB. Notability is not WP:INHERITed. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to David Chase - Essentially best known for Sopranos and while there are two options of moving to either Hunter Scarangelo or David Chase, I think the latter is good as it then links to the character as well. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of characters from The Sopranos – friends and family, No point redirecting to her Dad's article (where there's barely any mention) when she can be redirected to a programme which she had a massive role in. –Davey2010^Talk 00:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Showunmi Rex[edit]

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

Fails GNG, NPOL and ANYBIO. That the subject has written one or two articles which were featured on one or two magazines without receiving significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject does not qualify as notable Stanleytux (talk) 03:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails our primary notability criteria. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - several bloggish entries, a dead link and domain name for sale do not qualify as reliable sources. No notability evident.--Rpclod (talk) 04:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DiskReport[edit]

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

No independent sources, so not notable. Conifer (talk) 01:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my searches found nothing good specifically for this DiskReport. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 08:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found some online references to a JDiskReport, but not DiskReport. No reliable sources are given in the article.--Rpclod (talk) 04:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thermal Product Solutions[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that they meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More inclined to delete as my searches found nothing particularly good here, here, here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 17:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 08:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found some press releases and corporate entries, but nothing that suggests WP:ORG notability.--Rpclod (talk) 04:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to United Kingdom Roller Derby Association. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 06:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

British Roller Derby Championships[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. There's two references in the article, both to the league's own website. A google search only turns up a number of sources which do not meet WP:RS (i.e. facebook, youtube, our own article). -- RoySmith (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to a merge into United Kingdom Roller Derby Association as suggested by Clarityfiend -- RoySmith (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 08:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No independent media notice that I could find. A bit could be merged to United Kingdom Roller Derby Association, I suppose. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United Kingdom Roller Derby Association (with the history preserved under the redirect) per RoySmith and Clarityfiend.
I recommend preserving the history under the redirect so that the redirect can be undone if the subject becomes notable in the future. And preserving the history will allow the content in the article to be merged to the target article.
Cunard (talk) 05:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Estrella Mountain Community College. It's already mentioned there, so there's nothing to merge. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 20:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SouthWest Skill Center[edit]

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

Non-notable college, and this article is just a product directory, which Wikipedia articles shouldn't be. I believe it should be redirected to Estrella Mountain Community College. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 08:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into and redirect to Estrella Mountain Community College. I find nothing online that shows any separation from the college and nothing that suggests independent notability.--Rpclod (talk) 04:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zella Day[edit]

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

Non-notable artists, doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG let alone WP:MUSICBIO. The only coverage I can find of her is either brief mentions, short reviews, or interviews, nothing to demonstrate her suitability for a Wikipedia artist. TOOSOON? Primefac (talk) 08:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 23:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 23:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One quick glance here suggests there are numerous reliable sources for her to meet the WP:GNG. Not only that; her wikipage is getting hundreds of pageviews daily, an unofficial sign of interest in her work, while not a specific reason for notability. Further, another unofficial sign of notability is a YouTube video with almost two million views.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A slightly longer glance would show that those articles are almost all name-drops, brief mentions, or interviews. Exactly what I found BEFORE I created this AfD. YouTube numbers are useless; there are cat videos that get that much attention. Popularity =/= notability. Primefac (talk) 07:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Her album was reviewed in the NY Times. She gets in-depth treatment in the Chicago Sun Times. More in-depth treatment in the Birmingham Suntimes. Her photo is prominently displayed in the Los Angeles Times here at the popular SXSW festival. Or, in-depth treatment in Playboy magazine. Her music was reviewed in the Washington Times. An in-depth interview here. None of these are "name drops"; clearly Zella Day is getting serious media attention.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Zella Day is getting serious media attention as Tomwsulcer pointed out.Sofiamar (talk) 23:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! Zella is playing on alt radio stations across the US and performed on Conan!--‎23.241.204.9 (talk)‎

Zella Day on Conan.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The artist is getting the needed attention to get an article on Wikipedia.--Paparazzzi (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per SK1 & all that fun stuff (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 16:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Day[edit]

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

This article has been notability tagged since 2009. When I looked for sources I couldn't find that it had received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Sjö (talk) 07:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - significant coverage of Purple Day and Purple Day events around the world - US, UK, Australia, Canada, Pakistan, etc. [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45] I'm not sure why you couldn't find coverage - these examples and a lot more are in Google News. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 23:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as non notable pageant, Fails NEVENT& GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: It's not a pageant. It's epilepsy awareness day. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bollox wrong AFD! , I was going though This log & somehow ended up !voting here!, My bad . –Davey2010^Talk 22:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Page needs updating, but this annual epilepsy awareness day does generate a minor annual flurry of feature stories [46].E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I withdraw the nomination and vote keep after reviewing the sources that Wikimandia provided. I didn't think of Google News. I'll leave the updating to someone who knows the subject well enough to pick the important pieces of information. Sjö (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shikshan Prasarak Mandali[edit]

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

I attempted improving this article but the details are so messy and sources seem to say this is Sir Parshurambhau College so I'm not sure if this needs to be redirected there or what. My searches were this, this, this, this. Some of the issues I'm talking about is this book which is not clear about the details (who is "Raja Saheb of Jamakhandi" and "Parashurambhau Patwardhan"?). A look at the edits shows significant improvement and a better understanding has never been made much less sources. Schools are considered notable but this seems to be more of a school authority. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This seems to be similar in purpose to the Deccan Education Society, founded slightly later by people in the same social group but with a stronger emphasis on Marathi culture. Given the information in the article at the time of nomination, a redirect to Sir Parshurambhau College would certainly have been appropriate, but the sourced information added since then by User:Dharmadhyaksha is worth preserving if possible but would be of dubious relevance there. There is also unsourced information in earlier versions of the article that would be worth restoring if it could be reliably sourced. The organisation has existed for over a hundred years and establish several notable educational institutions, and my feeling is that an editor with access to and some knowledge of relevant sources could probably firmly establish the notability for a standalone article. On the question of whether this should survive as standalone, I am not currently sure either way. PWilkinson (talk) 08:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PWilkinson (talk) 08:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for being of historic nature and having helped establish numerous notable educational institutes in MH. The information on the society is tough to find online. Very few hits are relevant; some even contradict on the year of establishment 1883/88. But there is enough coverage on recent happenings in the society which cover the mismanagement rather than management by the group. e.g.. Overall, reputable on its own to stay as a standalone article but with lack of enough information to make it "appear" suitable. Btw, I am reluctant to add primary sources for listing down the institutes which are run by them. Its a gray area whether primary sources should be used to establish just the names of the institutes covered. Many editors would be against it, although I am pro, and hence I haven't added other colleges in the list. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per reasons stated by Dharma. Also, this is a founding institute for some of the very famous colleges in Mumbai and Pune. - Vivvt (Talk) 09:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Michael Schelp. (non-admin closure) — Yash! ^(Y) 11:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Car's Life: Sparky's Big Adventure[edit]

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

May not meet notability standards. Fails Google test. I dream of horses (T) @ 04:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 04:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to filmmaker Michael Schelp. Fails WP:NF but we can at least send readers to the director. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 23:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per MQS as always - Seems better to redirect than delete. –Davey2010^Talk 00:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely redirect, as long as there is a source over there that he actually directed this title. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sulfurboy (talk • contribs) 04:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Avery Rigg[edit]

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

Withdrawn by nominator

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG Sulfurboy (talk) 03:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:NGRIDIRON as a player of the Arena Football League. This article proves that he actually played in a post season game, and even made a substantial play. ~ Rob^Talk 03:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thank you BU Rob13, that was my mistake, I would have sworn I've seen AfD's before where Arena didn't count in NGRIDIRON, but I was obviously wrong. I will close and speedy keep this. Thanks again. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There are sources, but there's disagreement about whether they are numerous and reliable enough to pass WP:GNG. The size of the argument between two of the !voters makes it impossible to proceed with this discussion. Article may be re-nominated at some later time, provided WP:BEFORE is observed. Improvements have been proposed. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arkady L. Bukh[edit]

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

WP:COI WP:N WP:BIO,This article was either written by the attorney himself or at the direction of the attorney, based on the following evidence:

The attorney's website began to advertise a "As seen as Wikipedia" badge at the same time that the Wikipedia article was written (according to the Wayback Machine).
It was uploaded in its entirety by an account that is no longer active.
No other substantive changes were made since the creation of the article. That means this article owes its existence to the initiative of a single anonymous person, whose account has since been removed.
It is consistent both stylistically ("high-profile attorney") and content-wise with promotional pieces typically written about lawyers. The entire contents of the article consists solely of the list of his clients.

There are 450,000 lawyers in the United States, and a small fraction of them have been involved in cases that warrant an entry in Wikipedia. This one certainly does not.

PaperWario (talk) 02:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Jack Upland (talk) 07:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
COI is not a valid grounds for deletion. As consensus is not a vote, simply saying that something should be deleted without explaining why it should be deleted carries no weight either. James500 (talk) 12:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
COI is only listed because the template allows to list only one reason for deletion. The other two reasons are that the person is not notable (as far as lawyers go) and that this is an advertisement.PaperWario (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

paperwario, just ignore James, he has a track record of trying to derail afds. Anyone can vote and demonstrate how this person is or is not notable. LibStar (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LibStar, you know perfectly well that I was not arguing that the topic is notable. I was merely pointing out that certain arguments advanced above were irrelevant, in order to prevent them from confusing other editors. I was not trying to derail the AfD, I was trying to prevent it from going up two blind alleys. I have no such track record, and allegations of 'inclusionism' are, anyway, no more a valid argument than if I was to accuse you of having a track record of massively deletionist nominations and voting. James500 (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

there is certainly a track record of arguing to almost every keep voters in AfDs with swathes of massive text and multiple failed notability proposals. But reply again with a long winded rant. Remember more text means less angry. LibStar (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added WP:N and WP:BIO per James500's comments regarding COI. While COI alone may not be sufficient grounds for deletion, it's a helpful to know there is COI when the other two factors are present.PaperWario (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the multitude of references are intended to give the appearance of notability, but in reality just cover the cases. Nothing indicates that the subject himself is notable.--Rpclod (talk) 04:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete probable WP:AUTOBIO. Most of the sources are about people he has represented. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant coverage of him and interviews with him in Russia as he has had several high-profile clients, not just the Boston bombing-related guys but people accused of espionage, hacking etc. [47], [48],[49], [50], [51], [52], [53]. COI is not a reason for deletion. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yet there is zero coverage in the U.S. and the rest of the English speaking world. We are discussing an entry in the English Wikipedia here, and the reasons are COI, Notabilty, and WP:AUTOBIO. He represented a Kazakh accomplice of the Boston bomber, so no surprise it was covered by a few Kazakh newspapers. The remaining clients you mention are not even remotely "high-profile" (not that the guy who hid the Boston bomber's backpack is high-profile either). PaperWario (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We do not require coverage in the USA, the English speaking world or the English language. I do not see why Kazakh national newspapers should less valid than any other national newspapers. We have never required international coverage for anything. James500 (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not confuse regional significance with the lack of validity. The coverage had regional significance for Kazakhstan only, because the accused was a Kazakh national. The accused may very well have his own entry in the Kazakh version of Wikipedia. But in the English version he gets one or two sentences in the Tsarnaev article, so you can extrapolate the extent of his notability and his lawyer's notability from that.PaperWario (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what language the coverage is in, per Wikipedia guidelines to notability, nor is there a requirement that someone be high profile only in the English-speaking world (or only in the eyes of the nominator). As I said Bukh has represented several notable individuals. These were not all Kazakh sources but mainstream Russian media such as Russia Today and Moskovskiy Komsomolets. I didn't search for Kazakh (language) sources as it is a Turkish language I can't understand, but presumably there would be coverage as his client in the Boston bombing case was most definitely ethnic Kazakh. Nominator needs to study up on WP:BEFORE and WP:GNG: "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English." —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leave the attacks on the nominator out of this discussion and make sure you have an understanding of requirements for Wikipedia:Notability. The YouTube video you have provided as a "source" is a sponsored TV spot by the lawyer. Moskovskiy Komsomolets is yellow press and Russia Today is a Russian government-sponsored propaganda network that picked up a sensationalist (and ludicrous) quote by this lawyer about "cold war" motivations for the prosecution of the accused. That does not equate to significant news coverage nor make any of the subjects "high profile." Even if in some alternate universe these sources were worth including, the subject is still only mentioned trivially, which is again, not notable per Wikipedia requirements. PaperWario (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if you felt I was "attacking" you - it's quite standard practice in AfD to remind nominators of the many guidelines we follow. I'm not quite sure why you have it out for this guy - first you insist that sources must be in English (no, non, nyet, ne, nein; they don't have to be) and then you argue the non-English sources provided are not reliable. MK and RT are not on any Wikipedia blacklist and are considered reliable sources. Strangest to me is that you undid the improvements made to the artice because you want people here at AfD !voting on the article to "see the evidence" of the COI, aka the worse version..... It seems to me you really have it for this guy. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems quite the other way around. You are the only one on here who's unusually keen on defending the deletion of something that's clearly a lawyer advertisement, and you started aggressively editing the page during the AfD to make it appear less of an advertisement (which obviously didn't address the article's failure to meet notability requirements). I have nothing against him, but I found the "As seen on Wikipedia" badge on his site was strange because he was treating Wikipedia as a source for his celebrity, which made me research the history and contents of the page, and lo and behold, both were bogus. But your fervor in defending him, including providing dubious sources, such as his promotional videos on YouTube, makes you appear either affiliated with this lawyer or to be simply defending him because he's Russian. PaperWario (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please just sit back and kindly let the AfD process proceed. That would be very helpful. If people want to try to improve an article, it is not some kind of assault on you. If you spent time at AfD you would know that it is very common for editors to try to improve articles (yes, a few of us even show "fervor") and you should WP:AGF here. It's highly disruptive to revert good faith improvements because you want to keep a worse version of the article (!). The idea that I am affiliated with the subject of this article in ludicrous, and I have recommended deletion for many Russianish articles so I take offense to your accusation of bias (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrey Davydov, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yury Serebryakov, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iskander Galiev, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maxim Stoyalov etc.), and I'm going to again remind you that WP accepts non-English sources (WP:GNG) so please stop making belittling comments about "foreign" sources in a "foreign" country. [54]. Thank you. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimandia is correct in saying that if an article contains promotional content, that should always be removed immediately, and not restored, regardless of whether there is an AfD in progress or not. The relevant policies are ATD and SOFIXIT. James500 (talk) 03:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken about allowing editing during AfD. The point still stands--the entire article is a self-promotion, and this AfD came to life upon detection of that fact. You can rewrite a poorly written article but you can't rewrite one to make a non-notable subject notable. And enough with the red herrings about foreign languages. The point here is not to discriminate against information written in foreign languages. The point is that most subjects that receive extremely limited, regional coverage are only notable in that limited context and are not notable for the purposes of compiling an encyclopedia. When a Harvard student falls off a bike while riding it in Manhattan, that event may very well be covered in The Harvard Crimson, but guess what--NYC and the world couldn't care less. It's a notable event for Harvard and a non-notable event for the rest of the Universe. Three Americans gathering in Union Square to shout anti-American slogans might very well be covered by Russia Today, because that's what they do--take advantage of any news, no matter how insignificant, to paint the U.S. in a bad light. Again, not a notable event. None of the links provided by Wikimandia show the subject's notability. If you are going to write a Wikipedia article about every lawyer who says "My client's not guilty" to anyone who's willing to listen, then you have get to work, because you have millions of articles to write.PaperWario (talk) 05:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied A9. Peridon (talk) 13:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Make it Wild - Single[edit]

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

non notable individual song Gaijin42 (talk) 02:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TapeOnline[edit]

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

This could've very easily been deleted via PROD but I wanted something with a little more weight. My searches found absolutely nothing to even suggest marginal local notability and none of the current sources are outstandingly significant (primary, either by official website or press releases). With no possibility of improving, delete is the only option. SwisterTwister talk 04:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolutely no indication anywhere online that I can find that this company is significant. -IagoQnsi (talk) 04:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Lorne Munroe. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 06:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Janee Munroe[edit]

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

I'm not entirely certain if she's independent notable as my searches found no good sources aside from this and this. If others think she's notable, then the article can be kept or it can also be redirected to Lorne Munroe who seems to have a little more substance. Comments? SwisterTwister talk 04:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the subject attempts to tie notability to the spouse, but notability cannot be inherited.--Rpclod (talk) 04:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. My news sweeps did not find enough to justify the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lorne Munroe. She does seem to have has a wee career of her own.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lorne Munroe (with the history preserved under the redirect) per SwisterTwister and E.M.Gregory. I found one source about the subject:
1. Holmes, Kristin E. (2006-09-22). "Janee G. Munroe, musician". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2015-07-31. Retrieved 2015-07-31.
But a single source is not enough to establish notability. I would support keeping if a second source could be found.
I recommend preserving the history under the redirect so that the redirect can be undone if a second source is found. And preserving the history will allow the content in the article to be merged to the target article.
Cunard (talk) 05:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Sandling[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable with a lot of achievements but no actual good sources as shown here, here, here and here (all mostly gossip and such). There's also not even not much at IMDb, and often if there's not much there, there's not much for Wiki. SwisterTwister talk 03:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one source that gushes but provides no evidence of the subject's notability, two that peripherally reference the subject and two deadlinks. Nothing supports notability.--Rpclod (talk) 04:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Significant coverage" is a WP:GNG requirement, one that certainly isn't met here. She is noted in a handful of tabloid headlines, none of which accompany substantive articles. North of Eden (talk) 02:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Law (Politician)[edit]

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

WP:BLP, relying extremely heavily on unreliable or primary sources like social media profiles, his own website or Blogspot posts, of a person notable only as an as-yet-unelected candidate in a future party primary. As usual, this is not a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia under WP:NPOL — if you cannot make a credible and properly sourced claim that he was already notable enough for an article before he became a candidate, then he does not become notable enough for an article until he wins the election (and by "the election", I mean the big enchilada in November 2016, and not just the party primary.) Further, by far the majority of the content here is just a list of his positions on the issues — making this a pure campaign brochure rather than an encyclopedia article. So he'll certainly qualify for an article if he wins the election next November, but he is not entitled to use Wikipedia to promote his candidacy in the meantime. (Also ~~probable~~ confirmed WP:COI — as these things almost always are — as the creator's username Googles straight to a person whose Facebook profile lists his current employer as "Alex Law for Congress".) Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination as an unelected politician who is not notable before becoming a candidate. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. He's a 24-year-old ex-IBM employee (who decided it was a good idea to quit to run for office). Revoke this Law. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This comes off as a promotional campaign website written by a campaign staffer. It lacks the sources needed to demonstrate notability for the candidate as an individual. Alansohn (talk) 13:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even candidates who win a party nomination for the US house are not notable. Candidates who have declared they will run in a primary, but could just as easily back out before the primary actually occurs, are very far from notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this 24 year old candidate unseats an incumbent, that would be very notable. But right now, he is unelected politician which doesn't warrant an article on Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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