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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 03:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis J. Gilmore[edit]

Dennis J. Gilmore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No non-inherited notability. -- haminoon (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to First American Corporation as results here, here, here and here found nothing to suggest independent notability and may currently be known for First American. SwisterTwister talk 00:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only find directory listings and routine announcements. Article created by a now-blocked account. LaMona (talk) 04:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as lacking in depth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 03:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David J. Campisi[edit]

David J. Campisi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No non-inherited notability. Reads like a CV. -- haminoon (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I find no suitable sources, just mentions in relation to his position at Kohl's. LaMona (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: article created by a now-blocked account. LaMona (talk) 04:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as lacking in depth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 03:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carl M. Casale[edit]

Carl M. Casale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No non-inherited notability. -- haminoon (talk) 23:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to CHS Inc. as my searches instantly found results here and here for CHS and it seems this is one of his only CEO positions. SwisterTwister talk 00:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Only possible RS is the Twin Cities newspaper, but that is a short article and not enough for notability. LaMona (talk) 04:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as lacking in depth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aldo Charles Zucaro[edit]

Aldo Charles Zucaro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No non-inherited notability. -- haminoon (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No significant sources, only routine listings. Created at same time as a number of other CEO pages by a now-blocked account. LaMona (talk) 04:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as lacking in depth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow keep. (NAC)--Antigng (talk) 11:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide of Chen Gang[edit]

Suicide of Chen Gang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

While the subject's life and death could be called tragic, they are not notable enough per our guidelines to make a fully-fledged tragedy. There's some newspaper coverage on this person but that's all there is, and all of that is from basically right after his death. In other words, there seems to be no longterm importance. In addition, since the man wasn't notable in any other way, though his jobs or positions, it's a pretty clear case of WP:BLP1E. Drmies (talk) 23:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'm not able to find any long-term coverage, except for the open letter written to him after he died. This is better sourced than the Chinese article (zh:陈刚_(教师)), but I can't find the lasting impact. I did just the basic search I could do; if anyone is able to find more, I'll change to keep. This is a well-researched and written article for the most part so it would be a shame if it had to go. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as creator. I thank above editors for their comments, although I do plead for them to reconsider. I actually stumbled upon this story while doing research for an article on a completely unrelated "Chen Gang" - and came across the dab page on the Chinese Wikipedia; as such I hope you can understand that I have no other interest whatsoever for writing about this seemingly unremarkable mid-level functionary except for the encyclopedic value it brings and the deeper issues that it touches upon.

  My peers can attest to the fact that of my 12 years on Wikipedia I have never so thoroughly researched for an article and had it nominated for deletion.
  That aside, I definitely can see where the above two editors are coming from if we were to rely on the letter of our policies, and in any case I am happy to submit to consensus. But consider a few things. The discussion on Chinese social media and Chinese overseas websites for this event was ubiquitous after it occurred. Duowei and Boxun, two of the most read Chinese-language news portals outside of China, covered the story on their front pages. That the only major reporting belonged to the Southern media group points to concerted efforts at censorship by the state, and we indeed have evidence that authorities shut down social media posts about the incident shortly after it occurred. The 'open letter', penned with a remarkable amount of self-censorship, was the only essay speaking to its lasting impact, not because there was no demand for long-term coverage, but because there was a censorship regime in place to prevent long-term coverage. Thirdly, if we were to delete this well researched article using the criteria cited above, then by extension we also should consider deleting 2011 Huizhou refinery explosion incident, Xinyang bus fire, and the 2011 Yunnan protest, none of which had any long-term impact. Fourth, it's worthwhile mentioning that there should be no doubt that this would be a 'speedy keep' on the Chinese Wikipedia, and the corresponding article on wikiclone Baidu Baike has several hundred thousand hits. One might simply consider how something like the Disappearance of Natalee Holloway might be seen to a group of Chinese Wikipedia users to see how unremarkable this death might seem to be trivial to one group but extraordinarily notable to another group. I hope the editors proposing deletion can also appreciate why I may have chosen to create this article being fully aware of Wikipedia's Notability guidelines and why I would see it as worthy of encyclopedic value and readership. Thank you for your consideration! Colipon+(Talk) 02:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dear Colipon, no one is impugning your motives--that's not what this is about. But we cannot go on conjecture, esp. if that conjecture is "there would have been more coverage had it not been for...". Now, that the article is "well-researched" may well be true, but the fact remains that there's not much to research, as you yourself said. Conversation on websites and social media doesn't matter--what matters is what reliable sources, preferably in print have to say. The comparison with other articles isn't that relevant anyway: WP:OTHERSTUFF, and if it were up to me 2011 Yunnan protest would be deleted as well, if there was nothing to add to the existing coverage. Bottomline is, we need coverage. Drmies (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I'm going to change to keep. My feeling was that while the open letter (more than a year after his death) was printed in many news outlets, it was done so without any additional media analysis that I would have liked to see. However, I think editor Colipon makes a good point about the censorship possibly being a factor. I want to avoid any systemic bias that may come to play because we expect the usual in-depth media analysis that we have in the free press. So I will change to keep, as I do think the open letter indicates its long-term notability and coverage, giving that it addressed (analyzed) Guanxi in a way that actually was quite significant. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's the thing. (or one possible thing) If we are going to say "keep" based on the thought that there would have been more coverage had there been no official censorship, then we are basically denying our mandate that we base our decisions on reliable sourcing. Moreover, Western media are of course quite keen to report on things suppressed in China--so if we can draw conclusions from what we don't know, a more immediate conclusion could well be that since this wasn't picked up, it's not notable. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per Colipon. --TIAYN (talk) 06:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This is a real fence sitter. Even if all claims are substantiated, at present, we are going to have trouble with this being an independent entry as opposed to an entry/section in an article on "corruption" in contemporary China. At present, this may be a galvanizing testimony to corruption and a rallying point for the pursuit of reform, but we're betting on the future to suggest that, as an independent article, it's. . . . It's on the line, either way. Perhaps we should default to keep in matters of doubt, though. Hithladaeus (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did try to keep the article balanced enough so it is not entirely certain whether this was an act of a deranged man or in fact a hero pushed to die by a corrupt system. I mention corruption because I believe it is a notable view, but the article doesn't explicitly stand behind this thesis. In any case, thanks for your input! Colipon+(Talk) 20:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are some arguments for deletion, but I think WP:BLP1E would call for deletion of an article about Chen Gang, the person, but not "Suicide of Chen Gang.". That is, Chen Gang the person is not notable, but a protest suicide which is part of a general pattern is. The case might be further strengthened by creating a category something like "Anti-regime protests in the PRC" -- that's not quite right, but I think you can see the idea. Or maybe an article to anchor the category? That is, it would be good to offer readers other pieces in a general pattern.

Another consideration in my mind comes from looking at Colipon's "Contributions," which include a number of articles in this general area, plus mention on the Talk Page of deleting articles for non-notability. This leads me to think that it is reasonable to give the benefit of any doubt to Colipon's judgment. ch (talk) 22:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This nomination is not without merit, but Colipon's argument and comparison of the case with Disappearance of Natalee Holloway are convincing. This does appear to be a notable case that's been widely covered in both Chinese and international (albeit Chinese-language) media. Disclosure: I've collaborated with Colipon on several articles in the past, so my views may be biased. -Zanhe (talk) 07:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't read Mandrin, but the sources have in depth coverage of something. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas W. Stotlar[edit]

Douglas W. Stotlar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of non-inherited notability. Reads like a resume. -- haminoon (talk) 23:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Found no significant sources. As CEO of a company he is quoted, but none of the articles are about him. LaMona (talk) 03:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After poking around, I also discovered that this article was created by a now-blocked user, User:Editingright. The same user created a number of articles for CEO's where the references are quite lean. LaMona (talk) 03:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as lacking the in depth coverage in reliable sources needed. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

André Calantzopoulos[edit]

André Calantzopoulos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of non-inherited notability. Reads like a resume. -- haminoon (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this article was already kept just recently and the argument was valid —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unless it is determined that CEO's of large companies are automatically notable, this does not pass WP:GNG in terms of sources. Also, yet another CEO article by blocked sock User:Editingright LaMona (talk) 03:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, (I was going to say tentative, as I don't have much experience with these sorts of bios but wiki tells us to be bold...:)). Meets WP:GNG and probably also WP:ANYBIO - "2.The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Calantzopoulos' specific field is the tobacco industry. Here are some of the numerous citations brought up in a google search (could more experienced editors please comment on them, specifically those that are deemed not useable): [1] - 'Tobacco CEO: If you start smoking, try this' - interview discussing new product,[2] - 'Philip Morris (PM) Names André Calantzopoulos as CEO' - "Under their combined leadership, PMI has solidified its position as the largest and most profitable international tobacco company," and "Under André’s leadership as Chief Operating Officer, we have successfully increased our revenues even in difficult operating and economic environments.." ,[3] - 'Plain packaging and currency swings weigh on Philip Morris' - article discusses effect of plain packing on PM and quotes Calantzopoulos on what PM will do, [4] - 'philip morris international (PM:New York Consolidated): André Calantzopoulos' - resumé (I wonder how much checking these organisations make?) ,[5] - 'Andre Calantzopoulos CEO at Philip Morris' short bio and breakdown of his earnings from PM - at over usd14mill does this show from a monetary pov his commercial notability? ,[6] - 'Philip Morris Readies Aggressive Global Push Division Spinoff Enables Blitz of New Products; High-Tar Smokes in Asia' - analysis of PM new products and reorganisation with quotes from Calantzopoulos. Of course, this article could also be merged into Philip Morris International if deemed not warrenting a stand-alone article. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evelyn Keppel[edit]

Evelyn Keppel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability. -- haminoon (talk) 23:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - Apologies I was a little overzealous in nominating articles by a paid editor. -- haminoon (talk) 00:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Keppel played in the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League and therefore meets WP:BASE/N. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Muboshgu. Alex (talk) 01:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a WP:BASE/N pass, per Muboshgu. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Declare safe. Since we keep male pros who've played in one lousy MLB game, she more than qualifies with a full season under her belt. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets notability guidelines. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per WP:BASE/N criterion #3. Rlendog (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Explicitly passes WP:NBASE as the league she played in is listed there. --Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 00:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mean Spirit[edit]

Mean Spirit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable. -- haminoon (talk) 23:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - Apologies I was a little overzealous in nominating articles by a paid editor. -- haminoon (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Yes it is.[7][8][9][10]. Colapeninsula (talk) 10:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep - nominated for Pulitzer Prize!!! —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets WP:NBOOK, here are some references (thanks also to above editors): [11] - pages 55 to 59 from Deforming American Political Thought: Ethnicity, Facticity, and Genre by Michael Shapiro - analysis of book, [12] - Visions for a New World: A Journey through Leslie Marmon Silko’s Almanac of the Dead and Gardens in the Dunes and Linda Hogan’s Mean Spirit and Solar Storms by Kendra Gayle Lee of Florida State University - Masters thesis, [13] - SILENCE, ABSENCE, AND MYSTERY IN LINDA HOGAN'S MEAN SPIRIT, SOLAR STORMS, AND POWER by KATHRYN E. ERICKSON of University of Central Florida - another Masters thesis, [14] - Native American Writers of the Plains by Oklahoma Humanities Council - small (5 line) review of book, [15] - Mean Spirit- Lyrical And Yet Disturbing - book review in Orlando Sentinel, [16] - Intertextual Twins and Their Relations: Linda Hogan's Mean Spirit and Solar Storms by Catherine Rainwater from Modern Fiction Studies Volume 45, Number 1, Spring 1999, pages 93 to 113 - need a subscription, [17] - Alice Walker's 'The Color Purple' / Hogan's 'Mean Spirit' / Selfhood, term paper from PlanetPapers - shows that book is studied in schools/colleges, [18] - Worlds in Collision: Mean Spirit by Linda Hogan, LA Times - book review, [19] - List of Pulitzer prize winners and finalists - this book a finalist in 1991, [20] - States Of Being In The Dark Removal And Survival In Linda Hogan's Mean Spirit by Eric Gary Anderson of Oklahoma State University from Great Plains Quarterly Vol. 20, No. 1, Winter 2000, pp. 55-67 - in depth review of book. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to May_Swenson#Bibliography. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Cage of Spines[edit]

A Cage of Spines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable. -- haminoon (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to May_Swenson#Bibliography. I can't really find anything to really show that this book merits an article outside of Swenson's main article. Other than the Kirkus review the mentions are predominantly in passing to Swenson's work as a whole. ([21], [22]) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Magical Mystery Tours[edit]

Magical Mystery Tours (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability. Appears to be advertising. -- haminoon (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - Apologies I was a little overzealous in nominating articles by a paid editor. -- haminoon (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: Not notable as per WP:NB. Not quite enough advertising for speedy deletion under G11. BU Rob13 (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]

• Keep - as per below. BU Rob13 (talk) 01:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - it seems like it meets point 1 of WP:NB [23], [24], [25], [26] —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. With zero sources, this is at best WP:TOOSOON and at worst, a hoax. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shut In The Movie[edit]

Shut In The Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unremarkable movie not due to debut until September of 2016. No claim of significance (nor sources found) regarding notability of the production itself (per WP:NOTFILM). If nothing else, it's simply WP:TOOSOON. --Non-Dropframe _talk 23:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NOTFILM. BU Rob13 (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fantasy WP:MADEUP project; any project with Taraji B. Henson would have plenty of sources the moment it came out, and all of this doesn't sound real. Nate • (chatter) 23:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or even speedy as a hoax. While there is a 2015 film called Shut In it has nothing to do with the mess of an article nominated here. BTW if a nineteen year old can pull that cast together than the must be a wunderkind. More likely this is wishful thinking on JUMOND RANDALL's part. Now there is nothing wrong with that - if you are gonna dream then dream large - but the article does not belong here at WikiP. MarnetteD|Talk 00:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Hoax that will be on a double bill with my epic film, "They Laughed at Me at the University." Hithladaeus (talk) 01:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as being unsourcable and failing WP:V and thus also WP:NF Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David J. Gallitano[edit]

David J. Gallitano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to be a resume. No non-inherited notability. -- haminoon (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unless it is determined that CEO's of large companies are automatically notable, this does not pass WP:GNG in terms of sources -- the only sources are directory listings and announcements of appointment. Also, yet another CEO article by blocked sock User:Secretsources LaMona (talk) 03:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete in depth coverage in independent reliable sources is a prerequisite. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alan S. Armstrong[edit]

Alan S. Armstrong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to be a resume. No non-inherited notability. -- haminoon (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No significant RS - only directory listings and one minor Q&A. Created by now-blocked account that was creating masses of CEO-type articles, none that meet notability. LaMona (talk) 04:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete in depth coverage in independent reliable sources is a prerequisite. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Borgas[edit]

Stefan Borgas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't appear to meet non-inherited notability criteria. Appears to be a resume. -- haminoon (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Created by a blocked sockpuppet and public relations editor [27], SPI. Also no indication of notability or that this will ever provide an encyclopedic verifiable biography rather than a resume or a repeat of info that belongs at Lonza Group or Israel Chemicals. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Most listed references are to the company site, directory listings, or are press releases. I don't find any RS. LaMona (talk) 04:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TLC178[edit]

TLC178 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Company fails WP:NCORP, with only sources being to press releases announcing partnership with soccer teams. Conifer (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Aside from the current English sources, my searches found nothing good with the best being some News links (non-English). Unless good non-English sources are found, I'm not seeing notability. SwisterTwister talk 01:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it feels like there should be soruces, but I'm not seeing them... Stuartyeates (talk) 07:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under A7 by Bbb23.(non-admin closure) Altamel (talk) 05:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tanjin Tisha[edit]

Tanjin Tisha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable model, fails WP:GNG and WP:NMODEL. An A7 tag was removed by a new editor different from page creator. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The only sources I found were blogspam, obviously not a reliable source. Conifer (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow. This would have absolutely been A7'd but for a user whose only contrib has been to remove the speedy tag -- something which I intend to investigate further. --Non-Dropframe _talk 22:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - A7 - Tagged as such as she's obviously non-notable and I have a feeling the creator of this crap is related to her, The CSD remover was probably the creator too, I should also point out re-tagging is allowed ... It's just re-prodding that isn't. –Davey2010^Talk 22:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Modern afro-caribbean art[edit]

Modern afro-caribbean art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Suspected original research. Article cites no sources that establish "Modern Afro-Caribbean art" as a recognized art movement or period, nor can I find any on GBooks.

Lo real maravilloso is an existing literary concept, but is already covered here; I don't think that's an appropriate redirect target for "modern Afro-Caribbean art", though. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I only now saw this edit by Writ Keeper. This article used to be a personal essay, of which only a side remark remained. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it's redundant apparently. According to the The Oxford History of Western Art, "Afro-Caribbean art can be called modern because, aside from the work of European itinerant artists, there is sparse evidence of local art production in any of the islands prior to the 20th century. ... But plantation economies could ill afford art in the leisurely sense, so their early forms of expression were manifested in performance art such as carnival. Afro-Caribbeans have only recently seen what they do as art. Caribbean populations took long to recognise the value of black creativity that had been promoted by Europeans in Paris, New York and London after 1914." —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Antony Waldhorn[edit]

Antony Waldhorn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable person, fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Only source shows they exist, not anything more. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Per nom. In addition, the article reads like an advertisement for the individual; "tough task to accomplish in music", "has excelled in", "Standing out among his fellow producers", "His competence on music began at the tender age of six", "as he excelled on the French horn and piano, which showed his potential as a young prodigy"; I could go on. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 06:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - until and unless non-self-generated, non-cruft sources emerge, I presume this article fails WP:BIO and all relevant subsets thereof. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now - My searches found no good coverage with the best being a few News. SwisterTwister talk 01:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per WP:TOOSOON. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Generic top-level domain#New top-level domains. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 01:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

.codes[edit]

.codes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable gTLD - only 4500 registered domains according to the article itself. The article itself is mostly unrelated material (generic stuff about gTLDs) and the rest is original research and original synthesis (e.g. "designated for computer programming associations such as the Python Software Foundation and the Wikimedia Foundation"). PRODded once as "NN new TLD spam"; PROD removed by article creator. Kolbasz (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Generic top-level domain#New top-level domains like many of these others: List of Internet top-level domains#ICANN-era generic top-level domains —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Wikimandia. The article does nothing to establish notability of the subject, and much of the content is unsourced off-topic padding. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as this is usually the norm for these here anyway. –Davey2010^Talk 22:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - Non-notable. 4500 domains insufficient. Faizan (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) 12:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. No evidence that this tld is more notable than others. Maproom (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G. Steven Farris[edit]

G. Steven Farris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable person, fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is just a resume, did the guy actually do anything besides hold some jobs and get paid? The two awards are regional and minor and do not confer notability per WP:BIO. — Brianhe (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yes reads like a CV. If this guy is notable the article doesn't show it. -- haminoon (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or maybe move to Apache Corporation - My searches found nothing to suggest independent notability aside from some News links. SwisterTwister talk 01:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Curt Sobel[edit]

Curt Sobel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about composer who as a team won an Emmy in 1992. After searching I could find no other sources to support notability except for a confirmation of the Emmy win. Understanding this win was in 1992 and may make it difficult to find online sources to support an article on this topic. At this point this article fails WP:GNG and the single Emmy win with no other coverage I believe makes it fail WP:COMPOSER as well. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - pretty clearly meets WP:COMPOSER point 4, "Has written a composition which has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers.". Has a lengthy resume' at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0811749/ and Google shows that he pops up in the news every now and then (e.g. http://www.billboard.com/articles/business/6436604/get-on-up-oscar-bid-sound-editing-process-james-brown-film ), albeit usually in specialised reporting on movies. Adpete (talk) 04:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets Criteria #1 of WP:ENTERTAINER His very prolific career as a music editor and composer includes 126 film and TV credits, 32 soundtrack credits, and 20 composer credits.[28] He has also been nominated for two Primetime Emmy Awards (winning once), and has also won two Golden Reel Awards, including winning the Golden Reel for Best Sound Editing in Feature Film for the 2004 Adademy Award winning film Ray, and again for the 2014 film Get on Up.[29] Dolovis (talk) 05:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Winning an EMMY is enough notability to pass WP:ENTERTAINER. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dan_Fredinburg[edit]

Dan_Fredinburg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject does not meet criteria for notablity — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comet1440 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 10 June 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Nothing changed since last AfD, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dan_Fredinburg Just citing notability seems to be off, since notability has been established, you just have to read the 1st AFD. It appears that user Comet1440 did not read the 1st AFD. Notability has been established for his work and media presence. There are also still news articles written, which mention him. prokaryotes (talk) 07:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep although the primary thing that makes this personal notable is that he died young in a dramatic and tragic way. However, his death was widely covered in the news media, so there are ample sources to support an article. LaMona (talk) 03:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep article is sound and well-sourced. Subject continues to be mentioned in accounts of Everest avalanches and their aftermath. —Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am troubled that the nominator of this 2nd AfD would stoop to altering my vote and comment while deleting other "'Keep" votes. It is THIS offending editor, and not the Dan Fredinburg article, which should be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. —Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 04:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Journey to Heading 270 Degrees[edit]

Journey to Heading 270 Degrees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Awards are questionable, (who awarded them?) Page only has a few reliable sources. Notability is questionable. Ism schism (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The subject is reviewed in this phd thesis submitted to the university of Manchester. Some other sources such as this, this and this one have reviewed or mentioned the subject. By the way, I'd like to know what the nominator means by 'questionable'? I do verify the awards mentioned here as a bilingual. Consequently, the subject is notable per WP:BKCRIT #1&2. Mhhossein (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, the book is the subject of instruction in the University of Pennsylvania (notable per WP:BKCRIT #4). Mhhossein (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the two reasons cited above.--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The subject clearly passes WP:N, having been discussed in depth by independent reliable sources. However, this particular article on it was created by the sockpuppet of a particularly problematic POV-pusher and copyright violator. I would have nominated it for deletion under CSD G5 but for the fact that it has many subsequent edits (by editors who I hope are not also sockpuppets). If the current article is to be kept, it should be carefully checked for POV issues and copyright violations. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per Mhhossein and because article clearly passes WP:BOOK I grant that it is POV and a generally lousy article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Katalin Nohse[edit]

Katalin Nohse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. References are company's home page and a directory entry. The (unsourced) assertion of notability is that they supply water for 3 million people, but I'm not sure whether that alone suffices to make them notable. ubiquity (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the article is spam, and no independent sources indicate notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unless good Romanian sources are found, my searches found nothing aside from one News and two Books (other searches at browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary found nothing). SwisterTwister talk 01:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is a run of the mill company. Bearian (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Notionaries (rock band)[edit]

The Notionaries (rock band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. All of the sources cited (and that I found elsewhere) are either unreliable (blogs, press releases, etc.), merely give a summary of the band and the music it has published, or simply mentions the band in passing. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's true, there are no reliable independent sources that significantly cover this subject. Almost all results from Google News search are from a site called "Music Indistry News Network", which is, as I understand, used by the bands to promote themselves. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Multiple searches found no good coverage aside from results at News and browser. SwisterTwister talk 01:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 18:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Social Wavelength[edit]

Social Wavelength (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

trivial awards, and no indication of actual notability. The inclusion of the bios of the executives and the names of the rest of the staff and the addresses of all the offices shows promotional intent. DGG ( talk ) 18:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've removed most of the article's content as copyright violations from the sources cited. Hut 8.5 21:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as basically spam. CorporateM (Talk) 19:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - My searches here, here, here and here found no good coverage. SwisterTwister talk 01:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is for article retention. Of note is that topics can be notable per having received significant coverage in independent reliable sources despite their developmental status. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Small, sealed, transportable, autonomous reactor[edit]

Small, sealed, transportable, autonomous reactor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

this is a concept that was developed 11 years ago. it never got further. Ysangkok (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Even though it was a failed project, there are many sources that describe it. The number of sources, no doubt partly because of the involvement of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, is sufficient to support notability. I have added another external link and an inline citation. The article requires clean-up. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - there's not much here when you consider it's obsolete (apparently). However, it would possibly make sense to have a more generic article about portable nuclear power. There's more info about it here - Army Nuclear Power Program and here [30]. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Whether or not the design was ever realized doesn't matter - only if it's notable or not. In this case it seems to be, from the provided mainstream coverage and Scholar hits. Kolbasz (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This device is notable because its design and planning has significant coverage in reliable sources, even if never actually built. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Peterson (journalist)[edit]

Scott Peterson (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:BLP of a television journalist, essentially just a thinly veiled rewrite of his "our personalities" profile on the website of his own employer and citing no reliable source coverage at all. A journalist is not automatically eligible for a Wikipedia article just because you can point to primary source verification that he exists, but must be the subject of independent coverage which verifies that he passes WP:JOURNALIST for something. But that's lacking — I just did a ProQuest search, and even adding extra search keys ("journalist", "CBC", "Global", "Business News Network", etc.) to filter out Laci Peterson's murderer I still only got hits relating to Laci Peterson's murderer if I got anything at all. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if real sources ever start showing up. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete on two accounts, there's no claim of him doing anything of particular note (apart from a good professional job as a journalist) and, secondly, the article is 90% a word-for-word copyvio of his CBC pressroom profile. Sionk (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:RESUME and COPYVIO. Nate • (chatter) 23:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or move to CBC News Network#Anchors - My searches found nothing to suggest there's independent notability at this time. SwisterTwister talk 04:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draft, my searches found nothing to suggest this is notable so it can be drafted for now and moved again when notable (non-admin closure) SwisterTwister talk 01:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bulbul app[edit]

Bulbul app (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

non notable--refs are either nonspecific or PR DGG ( talk ) 17:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - page has been moved to Draft:Bulbul app. ansh666 10:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mustoi Balouch[edit]

Mustoi Balouch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG. I have not done a search of non-English sources but with that limitation there is almost nothing out there that mentions this tribe. What does, and is reliable, comprises passing mentions about individuals who were victims of sex crimes etc rather than about the tribe. Sitush (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it is an older version of the same topic, with the same notability problems:

Mastoi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Sitush (talk) 04:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both. Fails WP:GNG and WP:V. Originally an orphaned article from the "let's add to Wikipedia some badly written local stuff nobody outside my [red linked] village somewhere in rural Pakistan knows about"-department; improvements to date have been mostly trimming away excess text about non-notable clan members etc. I originally nominated this for prod, but that was declined through technicality. Keep an eye for any copies and socks as this was pushed somewhat aggressively to WP. If this somehow survives, then I think Mastoi needs to be a redirect to Mustoi or other way around. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 17:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both articles. No sources on either, and can't find sources that would confirm notability. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diego de Souza Gonçalves Gusmão[edit]

Diego de Souza Gonçalves Gusmão (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he had played in Campeonato Paulista. This does not confer notability since only Paulista A1 is fully pro; his appearances were in A2 and A3. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy [[WP:GNG|GNG]. Fenix down (talk) 17:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 01:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mbilla Etame[edit]

Mbilla Etame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy [[WP:GNG|GNG]. Fenix down (talk) 17:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 01:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The major argument for keeping is that they're listed on an exchange, but per WP:LISTED, that's not enough to meet WP:CORP -- RoySmith (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WH Ireland[edit]

WH Ireland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable company, they don't list on the main London Stock Exchange (which would be an actual claim of notability), no evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WH Ireland is a publically quoted company and member of the London Stock Exchange ("LSE"). The organization's shares can be traded and has a share price. ^[1] The LSE is an international exchange Group operating a broad range of international equity, bond and derivatives markets, of which the LSE in one. ^[2]. WH Ireland is quoted on the LSE AIM market which is the London Stock Exchange’s international market for smaller growing companies. A wide range of businesses including early stage, venture capital backed as well as more established companies join AIM seeking access to growth capital.^[3] Some additional links are given below to information of WH Ireland's listing on the LSE.

• http://m.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/mobile/stocks/summary.html?tidm=WHI
• https://www.google.co.uk/finance?q=LON:WHI
• http://www.lse.co.uk/SharePrice.asp?shareprice=WHI

Symon Walmsley at WHIreland (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC) — Symon Walmsley at WHIreland (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete There are some sources[31][32][33] in the article, but they are just not substantial enough to meet WP:CORP. CorporateM (Talk) 19:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - obscure trading firm of insufficient notability under WP:CORP.

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 07:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chandigarh HandBall Association[edit]

Chandigarh HandBall Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

non notable club. deleted once as a7, recreated. nominated for a7 again, declined. two refs, both WP:ROUTINE Gaijin42 (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: So far as I can tell from the article itself, it is a regional handball association beneath a district handball association in a national handball association. The article is a truly staggering redlink factory, suggesting that, if it wasn't a hatrack in purpose, it at least has that promise. Notability seems to come from its routine function as itself, rather than any discussion of its achievements. Hithladaeus (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Final Fantasy VII. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shinra Electric Power Company[edit]

Shinra Electric Power Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability not established. Largely in-universe description of a plot item in a video game, with references to books published by the game's publisher, an FAQ that doesn't discuss the topic in any detail and a self-published translation of part of one of the aforementioned books (dead link; try web.archive.org). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - Certainly a large part of the Final Fantasy series, but I don't think it really has any out-of-universe relevance though. Even if it did, it'd almost be a WP:TNT type situation - I mean its really pretty far away from what we want Wikipedia articles to look like. (For example, What's up up with all of the block quotes/"c quotes" that are fictional direct quotes from what the character says in-game. It looks like something out of a game manual or something.) (EDIT: I'm fine with a redirect, it is a plausible search term. A merge wouldn't be necessary though, as most of the content isn't usable, and Final Fantasy 7 is in great shape, so it probably has all it needs about Shinra there already.) Sergecross73 msg me 12:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Final Fantasy VII. Exactly—no out-of-universe significance in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. The main article is sourced and handles the relevant material just fine. Please ping me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. – czar 23:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Move as suggested - My searches found nothing to suggest this has outstanding notability for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 04:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - way, way too much in-universe detail; none of the information is usable in the article on the game as is. --PresN 18:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 07:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phonon Communications[edit]

Phonon Communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

They are a company with only a small amount of coverage, I couldn't find any more. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contested Deletion[edit]

As per Wikipedia As per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies):

An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability

This clearly mentions a negative case, that: "trivial or incidental coverage of a subject ....is not sufficient to establish notability." This aspect is agreed.

However, the coverage^{[1][2] [3] [4]} qualifies as substantial and direct coverage by independent secondary sources. This reference sources are:

1. Periodicals and links of repute and significant coverage/distribution in India.
2. The coverage is not a part of any media syndications or paid news, and is independent coverage.
3. The article refers to and associates items only referred to by in the coverage from secondary sources; and there is no marketing/sales content in this.

Therefore the article should not be deleted and be removed from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phonon Communications. Macky0209 (talk) 09:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I am very reluctant to vote keep on a company of only 30 employees, but there is in-fact a sufficient amount of source material to support at least a good quality stub. CorporateM (Talk) 19:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per CorporateM. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JLCX[edit]

JLCX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Previous prod was removed without comment. Concern was that their is no evidence of notability and the article is unsourced. I concur - not notable Gbawden (talk) 12:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no indication of notability, let alone very poorly written and without any references.--Rpclod (talk) 13:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Incomprehensible in its own right, but it appears to say that "JLCX" isn't an independent, functioning unit anymore anyway. Hithladaeus (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. JLCX is a reporting mark for J&L Consulting, a leasing company. Those can be notable, but I can't find much discussion of the company. Mackensen (talk) 22:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Very close between keep and merge but the keep arguments are slightly stronger. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IKEA pencil[edit]

IKEA pencil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable or important Wrightie99 (talk) 11:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC) This is just not a notable subject, there is a citation missing but I'm sorry but a Wikipedia does not need a fraudulent article on an obscene pencil made by a Swedish furniture store! Wrightie99 (talk) 11:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what is happening with the stuff above, but I strongly disagree with IKEA pencils being non-notable; they are a common item, very iconic, and the article has enough information to warrant inclusion in the encyclopedia. WP:PRODUCT states that a product (which this is, kinda) should be listed separately if the maker's article is 'unwieldy' – IKEA is quite long and I would classify it as 'unwieldy'.

It suits WP:GNG because:

"Significant coverage" – Y News articles, primary sources, etc can all be found on this topic

"Reliable" – Y Many of the sources are reliable

"Sources" – Y

"Independent of the subject" – Y Primary and secondary sources are all available

"Presumed" – Y The history and breadth of resources warrant this article being kept.

I have also found a source for the 'citation needed' which I will add to the article now. – Hshook (talk) 11:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning to delete. Two articles referenced are essentially duplicate (i.e., that an agency was surprisingly found to use the product). The third talks more about a work of art using the subject. This does not seem to be sufficient coverage to show notability for a pencil provided at a store.--Rpclod (talk) 13:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge to IKEA (but preferably not): this article is really just a stand-alone trivia section, which are to be avoided. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - strangely, these pencils do have quite a cult following and coverage as shown here [34], [35], [36]; however I don't believe this accounts for the required significant coverage. Most of the stories are related to the surgeons liking them as reported by the British Medical Journal (which was then re-reported). So we really have a handful of stories and it's insufficient for an encyclopedic entry, but can be a paragraph in the IKEA article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not quite sure why the nom has such apparently personal feelings about the article ~ "fraudulent", "obscene"? c'mon now ~ but i believe that the thing has sufficient coverage in reliable and significant sources (Time, Toronto Star to show that, however odd it may be, it has gained enough attention that coverage is warranted. I cannot see a lot of development potential (though it'd be cool to be proven wrong), but that's no reason to delete it. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 15:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The writing isn't all that elegant, but form follows function, I suppose. It would be good if the article weren't written so defensively -- with everything there cobbled from sources to defend against AfD and instead actually synthesized more naturally -- but that's kvetching about style. The pet rock gets an article, and the IKEA meatball probably does, too. Importance isn't part of notability, I'm afraid. Hithladaeus (talk) 16:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect per below: It makes more sense and is more useful to merge/redirect anyway, since it's doubtful that a person will always hit the magic formula of "IKEA pencil" if that's what she is searching for. The information will serve readers better at the parent article. Hithladaeus (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets WP:GNG: [37], [38], [39]. An option is to merge to IKEA. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - After reconsidering, I think the best course of action would be to merge the article with Ikea. Maybe create section for this notable, important pencil in the Ikea article. For clarity's sake, this !vote was added by the nominator here. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 12:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]
• Weak keep For me, the notability of this article lives and dies on its third paragraph: i.e., demonstrating that there is a sufficiently notable level of meme or subculture surrounding the stealing and re-purposing of the pencils; the rest (design, number stolen, etc.) is just padding, and wouldn't be enough for an article without the third paragraph. Personally, I think the two examples I see in the article to date – someone building a chair, and surgeons using them – are weak. But a Google-search shows that there is some low-level Facebook and Buzzfeed type of love for IKEA pencil larceny and repurposing out there, so I'd say it probably does enough to meet WP:GNG. Aspirex (talk) 12:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eternity: Our Next Billion Years[edit]

Eternity: Our Next Billion Years (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable book, has had notability tag for almost a year. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Reviews. Just added one form the Globe and Mail.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Michael Hanlon.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I was able to find some more reviews and I also found an interview about the book with SF Signal. This is just enough to push it above the bar for notability. I'd flesh it out more but I'm not familiar with the book, so I figure I'll leave it for someone who could put in more than just superficial information. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as Tokyogirl79says, it now passes WP:NBOOK.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, meets WP:GNG thanks to addition of references by Tokyogirl79 and E.M.Gregory Coolabahapple (talk) 09:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Lake Station, Indiana[edit]

List of mayors of Lake Station, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

simply not a notable subject. with references, it could be merged back to the settlement article, which is already pretty dismal itself. John from Idegon (talk) 11:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - cannot believe this has been around that long —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the content should have been added to the Lake Station, Indiana article because a size or content split is not justified. See Wikipedia:Splitting. Waters.Justin (talk) 10:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - does not warrant separate article from Lake Station, Indiana Quirinus X (talk) 12:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Whether a town or city is eligible for a standalone list of its mayors is not, strictly speaking, a question of the place's size — rather, it's a question of whether the city's article is long enough to warrant chunking some of its content out into subarticles or not. But that's not the case here. And further, the city is not large enough (pop. 12K) to confer an automatic WP:NPOL pass on its mayors — only one person named in this list actually has an article, and even that one article is a slice of deletion bait which contains nothing about him beyond a one-sentence assertion of his existence. So even if this were left in place as a standalone article, it would very shortly become a dead end page with no outbound links. The mayors can be listed in the city's main article if proper sourcing is added to verify the accuracy of the list, but we don't need this. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Vincent[edit]

Jason Vincent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Advert for non-notable chef. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTADVERTISING. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and copy edit to address promotional tone. The subject meets WP:BASIC – ^[1], ^[2], ^[3]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - all the live references are essentially due to one award in 2013, except one discussing his replacement. Notably the two Food & Wine links are dead. Even the awarding entity does not find him notable?--Rpclod (talk) 13:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now until better coverage is achieved, my searches News, Books and browser found some results but nothing outstanding. SwisterTwister talk 04:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move to draft namespace. The nominator has essentially withdrawn, agreeing to a move of the article to Draft namespace. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tammy Cromer-Campbell[edit]

Tammy Cromer-Campbell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOUR. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now and draft to userspace - My searches here, here, here and here found results but not enough for solid notability. This is a nice, neat and sourced article but I think we can wait until she's achieved some more coverage. SwisterTwister talk 04:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Whose userspace would we move it to? The creator is indeffed blocked as part of a PR sockfarm. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of that; in that case any willing or future user. I simply thought of drafting since the article may have future potential. SwisterTwister talk 20:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess moving it to Draft:Tammy Cromer-Campbell would be okay, that gives it 6 months for someone to decide to work on it before it becomes a stale draft. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Kevin Ellis[edit]

Robert Kevin Ellis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable person, fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unfortunate murder victim, but nothing notable indicated.--Rpclod (talk) 14:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Unfortunately delete as there isn't an outstanding amount of coverage with my searches finding here and here (nothing else with other searches). In any case, this would be better mentioned somewhere else such as a list but I'm not seeing a good target. SwisterTwister talk 04:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus for a particular action has emerged in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Monica Police Department[edit]

Santa Monica Police Department (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(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)

Non-notable police department, created by a PR sock. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP Joseph2302 (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Police department with about 450 employees. Large enough for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

number of employees is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 05:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]