< 16 June	18 June >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gerrit Folsom[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. -- Danny (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For a comparison basis, I went through the secondary regular cast members of A Nero Wolfe Mystery, cross-referencing Wikipedia and IMDB. Many of them had more than 40 IMDB credits, my arbitrary internal 'cut-off number.' Most them also had Wikipedia articles, often with minimal, nominally less than adequate third party references. No one is nominating any of them for deletion. . Gerit's production history, almost invariably as a Line producer, is substantial. Against him is that the article has been written entirely by someone close to him--whose only contributions have been to his article and a few subjects mentioned in his article. Tapered (talk) 05:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO and WP:GNG. An acting credit carries a lot more weight than that of a line producer. The latter just doesn't get any press notice. Despite being a major movie fan, I've never even heard of the job title until now. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur w/ Clarityfiend's rationale Tapered (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 18 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) 20:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HD 218061[edit]

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

This article has been tagged for lack of references since 2010. I searched for sources to improve this article about a star (including SIMBAD), but they appear to be lacking. While the object is just barely visible to the naked eye and hence satisfies WP:NASTCRIT, I don't believe it meets the significant coverage requirement for general notability. Praemonitus (talk) 22:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Note that the information in the Details section of the infobox is probable OR by the original contributor. Plus it's very likely incorrect, since this is an evolved giant star.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Praemonitus (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unlike the nominator, I believe that we should have an article on this subject, seeing as its naked eye visibility clearly passes WP:NASTRO criterion #1. However, the article is currently in such bad shape that I think WP:BLOWITUP is applicable here; the article is currently inaccurate with nothing to revert to, and having no information is better than having inaccurate information. See here for background. StringTheory11 (t • c) 22:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: too short. 333 -blue 23:08, 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. WP:TNT. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Filipino portrayals in American media[edit]

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

To be clear, the article topic itself is possibly suitable for a stand-alone article. But the current version is just a personal reflection (fails WP:OR and WP:NPOV, tagged since 2010, still orphan), based on one particular incident with Filipino boxer Manny Pacquiao. While the article has some sources, they are often not used to verify the article's content, but to illustrate the author's conclusions. Other claims are speculative or unsourced. GermanJoe (talk) 22:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is not my final judgement whether the subject is notable or not, but the first thing that comes to mind is WP:NOTCLEANUP. Let me see what reliable sources come up, and whether WP:NOTESSAY or whether the subject does not meet notability or not.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The topic appears in several sources:

Oreiro, Brandon Napenias (June 18, 2014). Overcoming Panethnicity: Filipino-American Identity in a Globalized Culture (Global Honors). University of Washington, Tacoma. Retrieved 17 June 2015.
Joaquin Jay Gonzalez (1 February 2009). Filipino American Faith in Action: Immigration, Religion, and Civic Engagement. NYU Press. p. 8. ISBN 978-0-8147-3297-7.
Allan Punzalan Isaac (2006). American Tropics: Articulating Filipino America. University of Minnesota Press. p. 18. ISBN 978-1-4529-0905-9.
M. Evelina Galang; Eileen Tabios (1 January 2003). Screaming Monkeys: Critiques of Asian American Images. Coffee House Press. p. 87. ISBN 978-1-56689-141-7.

Makes me believe that there is something here. Does this article need work? Surely, but is it so bad that it warrants WP:TNT? That is debatable. Therefore, I am making my opinion Weak Keep or redirect to Filipino American#Culture.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a POV rant, with references, an essay about the ideas of the writer. Time for it to go. Tapered (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The topic could fall under Minorities in American media which clearly passes WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It might be included in other categories also, but it's still a POV rant. Tapered (talk) 04:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sadly, the article author in his POV Rant decrying how Filipinos have been negatively represented in films, acts as if he is completely unaware of films with positive portrayals... such as MacArthur (film) where they are praised as noble and trustworthy allies. Under WP:NPOV its time for WP:TNT. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best this is an opinion piece. It's probably better to start over. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Without looking at the article itself, is the subject notable Lenticel?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is notable. We have Category:Depictions of people in popular culture for that. I've worked with various Cultural depictions articles and I'm actually fine in helping re-create it. RightCowLeftCoast I can give you a hand if you plan on revising it. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article could be renamed, Filipinos in American popular culture or maybe just Filipinos in foreign popular culture to accomodate depiction of Filipinos in popular culture of other areas such as Japan, Europe, etc.--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The latter would allow for a more globalized article, and can be a template for other peoples to have articles about their portrail n foreign popular cultures. Like Americans portrayal in anime.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Being domestically partnered with a Filipino American, I see an argument to having such an article. The idea has merit, anyway. Pero ... this essay is not really a neutral article. Can this essay be userfied, merged into another article (Pinoy? Filipino_American#Stereotypes?), or placed in Articles for Creation? Deletion, please recall, should be avoided when other solutions exist. Bearian (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I sympathize with Bearian's wish to rescue the article or find a merger target, but this article has nothing worth merging. It is a POV rant, not even really about the title subject. There may be a Wikipedia article to be written about this subject, but this article is not it. WP:TNT --MelanieN (talk) 20:54, 24 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. Sam Walton (talk) 09:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow government (Israel)[edit]

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

The term "shadow government" does not (as of 2015) exist in Israeli politics. There has never been a shadow government in Israel and there is no legal or procedural reference to such a possibility. AfD is for that reason unsourced (original author left Wikipedia). DGtal (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is a hoax (even if unintentionally). I also nominated for Speedy Deletion. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:35, 19 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) 20:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20Collective[edit]

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

Declined a CSD for this article as I didn't think it was completely unsalvageable in terms of sounding like an advertisement, but I can't find any reliable source coverage of this group. Sam Walton (talk) 17:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I couldn't find any sources either, which is why it was also tagged for WP:CSD#A7 speedy deletion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My first searches immediately found no good third-party coverage. SwisterTwister talk 18:05, 19 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. There is no consensus about whether there is a valid list here, but even the keep supporters think it should be moved to Lists of chancellors and vice chancellors so shall move it there. Davewild (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chancellors or Vice-Chancellors of[edit]

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

This is definitely not something that we do. It is not a proper disambiguation page, because there are no articles actually having this title, and those that have titles close to it are universally partial title matches; Chancellor (disambiguation) exists to cover actual ambiguous uses of that term. It is not workable as a list article because the collection of information is indiscriminate. Government chancellors and educational chancellors are lumped together solely by title, not by function. bd2412 T 17:00, 17 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 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as a list of lists, like Lists of presidents ~~(dropping the "of")~~ and rename Lists of chancellors and vice chancellors. It could be split into separate sections for schools and countries. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If we're changing both the title and the structure, we're basically talking about having a different article. bd2412 T 19:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't agree. We're keeping the content. That's the main part of an article. KSFT ^C 00:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of chancellors and vice chancellors I don't see anything wrong with the article except its weird name. KSFT ^talk 20:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's thousands of universities, each one would have to be added to this to make it complete. Completely unnecessary disambiguation page. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Not every university has an associated list. (2) This isn't a dab page, it's a list. (3) Lists (or dab pages) don't have to be complete. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well an incomplete list is stupid, and there still are thousands of University pages. For me, it fails WP:NLIST and is basically just LISTCRUFT. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, move to Lists of chancellors and vice chancellors, and turn into a proper list-of-lists instead of a dab, per Clarityfiend. Almost all our lists are incomplete, so I don't buy the argument that its incomplete state means anything about whether it should be deleted. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
&Keep and move to Lists of chancellors and vice chancellors. These lists exist, for some but not all of the universities and countries of the world, so a list of them is reasonable. PamD 21:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hello all, I am the creator of this page / list and thank everyone for their time. I have also created another similar lists (Faculty of Commerce and Faculty of Arts (disambiguation)) and depending on the outcome of this discussion (and should the outcome of this discussion be delete), I humbly recommend we action those two pages as well. If need be, I will nominate other two pages for deletion with reference of this discussion. At this, I would also like to draw your attention towards a good solution provided here in another case by a very helpful admin. Just FYI. Thanks again and apologies if I caused any trouble. I was just trying to standardize names and make information easily available for readers. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that these are all topics for Wikipedia:Broad-concept articles. A "Faculty of Commerce" is a type of thing in itself, and we should have an article with citations to references and textual information describing the history and common characteristics of this type of entity, rather than a page that merely lists a few examples. bd2412 T 12:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good point bd2412. With the same intent, I had first created page only for Vice-Chancellors but later realized that there were other pages with combination of uses and hence performed page move. In any case and as I stated above; whatever the majority decides will be done. Since the subject was open, I thought I should also draw everyone's attention towards similar pages I was involved in and / or had created. At this (and once when this discussion is closed), I request you for your guidance on the remaining pages (what should be done with them). Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry, we don't need this, as the Cs and VCs will be linked from the university's page and we have universities in... articles. This is just a well=intentioned but unmanageable mess of little prospective use. Le petit fromage (talk) 12:58, 22 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. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Australian National College of Beauty[edit]

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

non notable vocational school in a chain. Non degree-granting, and therefore cannot properly be called a college. DGG ( talk ) 14:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

College has different meaning in different settings and does not necessarily imply the awarding of degrees, e.g. Lake Ginninderra College (http://www.lakeonline.act.edu.au/) - offers year 11 and year 12 secondary classes in Canberra, Australia - does not offer degrees or any form of tertiary education.P.saladino (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no sources and it does not appear to meet notability guidelines. The use of the term "College" is a red herring. Many educational institutions in Australia that are not degree granting, including many private secondary schools (see Scotch College for 4 with the same name for a start), have College as part of their name. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only degree awarding institutions are inherently notable. this one only offers diplomas. LibStar (talk) 03:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Laureate International Universities, since the College is owned by education provider "Think Education", itself part of the "Laureate International University" group. In response to DGG argument that the college is "non degree-granting, and therefore cannot properly be called a college"; a College don't have to be a degree awarding institution to be called a college. There are several non-degree awarding colleges in the world and in fact some of them have article here, perhaps they met WP:GNG which this one under discussion does not meet thou. In real sense, a College is any of a number of independent institutions within certain Universities, each having its own teachers, students and building. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Private providers are an increasingly significant part of the Australian tertiary education system, and it's an area we should have coverage of. It's very odd that both the nominator and Bduke are talking about high schools because it has "college" in the name: that is completely irrelevant to the issue of having articles on private tertiary providers. Specifically oppose redirecting to Laureate International Universities, which doesn't even mention that it owns education institutions in Australia. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand me. I was saying that the nominator's argument about Colleges was not relevant because there are plenty of Colleges in Australia that are not degree granting like this one. I agree that private providers are an increasingly significant part of the Australian tertiary education system, but they need to be notable and that is the issue here. I am not seeing notability, but will change if some one finds some reliable sources. --Bduke (Discussion) 09:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bduke what do you think about redirect? The Drover's Wife; I earlier suggested Redirect per this source and this one. Although I felt it should have a stand-alone article but I can't find enough sources to support a stand-alone article. If you can provide enough reliable sources that established the subject notability, I will gladly change my decision from Redirect to Keep. However, the claim that the subject of the article is part of "LIU" may not be included in the article, Laureate International Universities as at the time the page was created but reliable sources establish that its part of "Laureate International Universities" the sources I provided above for example. In the same vein you misinterpreted Bduke's comment above. I and Bduke is saying that the nominator's argument about Colleges is ridiculous and invalid as rationale for deletion. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like LIU is a bit far removed and that it'd be better to delete if that's what it comes to. I feel like Think Education probably is notable as a business with major national operations, and might make for an acceptable merge/redirect if it existed (since it could cover this as well). I am not that enthused as to want to write it, though. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete College - whats in a name in Australian usage the term varies greatly to describe places of education, high schools to vocational certificate providers its also used to describe accommodation and study areas on some universities the term itself is irrelevent to this discussion as it correctly applied. Such a poor nomination should be closed on being out the scope of reasons for deletion but looking at the sources there are no independent sources providing substantial coverage as per WP:GNG and WP:RS for this reason it should be deleted. Gnan garra 03:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability hasn't been established. - Shiftchange (talk) 21:25, 20 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) 17:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Fraasch[edit]

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

Non-notable local politician lacking substantial coverage. Article resembles a resume. reddogsix (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one of a number of local councillors for a town of 33,000 people hardly bodes well. Looking around, she gets some routine coverage in the local newspaper for an organisation she set up and that's it. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Valenciano (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Municipal councillors are not deemed to pass WP:NPOL except in major, internationally famous global cities — absent that, you have to be able to source them over WP:GNG for some other reason beyond the mere fact of being a municipal councillor. But this makes no other claim that would get her over another Wikipedia inclusion bar — and it relies on minimal sourcing, with #1 being her own profile on her own employer's website (an invalid primary source) and the rest simply namechecking her existence in conjunction with exclusively local coverage of a social issue (and thus failing to demonstrate that she's nationally or internationally recognized for that work.) In addition, there's a probable WP:COI here if you check the creator's username — while that isn't technically a deletion rationale in and of itself, it confirms that the intent here had more to do with public relations than with Wikipedia's inclusion standards for politicians. Bearcat (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. My media sweeps did not find sufficient evidence to meet the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. If she were a city councillor of Pittsburgh, a large and storied city, perhaps there would be an argument to keep. As it is, she's not yet notable. Perhaps when she gets elected to Congress or the State assembly? Bearian (talk) 17:14, 23 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) 17:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Barrow[edit]

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources actually about the subject to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are an incredibly long list of complete junk obviously intended to discourage anyone from checking. (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback Msnicki, sorry you think it's junk. can you say which references you think are junk as the majority are leading independent national newspapers and TV channels. Happy to edit so we keep this. Yogiyo10 (talk)Yogiyo10Yogiyo10 (talk)

Yep - seems to meet these criteria WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV - sure has significant coverage which has 'editorial integrity'. Maybe you think some of the references should come out? please say which. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogiyo10 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]

They're all unhelpful. It is not enough to point to a lot of primary sources, internet listings and similar stuff and that's what most of these claimed sources are. I went through the list and it took me quite a while. All it takes to establish notability on Wikipedia is two good sources, defined as reliable, independent and secondary and actually about the subject. WP:RELIABLE means a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control. WP:INDEPENDENT means the author of the article cannot be connected somehow to the subject. WP:SECONDARY means that the author must offer his or her own thinking. It also has to actually be about the subject, it can't just be a trivial mention or a quote (or even an interview in most cases.)

It would be helpful if you could identify the two or three best sources that you feel meet the criteria. I've already said I don't think there are any. All it takes is two and if you can point them out, I promise to retract my nomination. Msnicki (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot User: msnicki - so i would say that links 5,6,10 and 11 are all reliable and independent. They all discuss his work in the context of a wider piece and express the article writer's opinion. They are reliable as from established media: The Caterer Magazine, The Telegraph, Computer Weekly, BBC. But you're right there are a bunch in there that are probably not needed and I'll take them out. Happy to retract your nomination on that balance? I'll make the edits now :-) Yogiyo10 (talk)yogiyo10Yogiyo10 (talk)

5 is an article in The Caterer Magazine about a study that was done by "accountancy firm Kingston Smith and the Cranfield School of Management". There is a one-sentence quote from the subject, described as a "visiting fellow at Cranfield School of Management". The publication may be reliable and article may be independent, but this source is unhelpful because it's not about the subject but about a study. Though he's quoted, the article doesn't report his connection to the study nor anything else about him. Either way, the comment is clearly WP:PRIMARY for reasons discussed at WP:Interviews#Notability.

6 is an article written by the subject, making it clearly WP:PRIMARY.

10 is also unhelpful. This is another article about the study and a new online tool being developed by Cranfield and Axa insurance. Three paragraphs are given to reporting the subject's favorable comments about the study and another three paragraphs to favorable comments from people at three other organizations. This is standard uncritical reporting of business press release material. Notice there's no byline. But also, the subject is described as "a director at Cranfield" and it appears he's talking about his own project. You can't make yourself notable just by talking about yourself or your work. Other people need to do it. His quotes and uncritical reporting of his views on his own work do not contribute to notability.

11 is a "Live Q&A" about writing a business plan. The subject is a panalist. This makes it WP:PRIMARY and unhelpful in establishing notability.

Fundamentally, none of these of sources (and I contend, none of the rest) meet our requirements as reliable independent secondary sources actually discussing the subject in detail. Msnicki (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We seem to be getting a lot of WP articles for authors at Kogan Page which makes me wonder if there isn't something coordinated going on. Notability for authors is not just a question of having written some books, and articles about authors need to be much more than bibliographies. There need to be reviews of the books, articles about the author and the author's importance in the world, etc. My gut feeling is that there will be few business authors who rise to WP standards. In a sense they are like the authors of self-help books -- they mainly give advice but there's little hard or even soft science to their writing. Like other authors, time (probably decades) will be needed to determine if their books have had an impact. If someone is dedicating themselves to adding these authors to WP, you might want to save yourself and the rest of us a lot of time by taking a serious look at WP:AUTHOR. LaMona (talk) 05:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LaMona, I've opened up an SPI and had a hard time finding the common thread here until I saw your post here. From what I can see, this appears to be an article by one of several editors that are working on behalf of a marketing company. It looks like the common thread here is that they're editing about authors published through Kogan Page and for another publishing company, London Wall Publishing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking past the citation bombing, and the fact that the cited sources almost never contain anything relevant to the passage where they're cited, they also fail to establish that there is significant coverage about the subject in multiple independent, reliable, secondary sources. The subject fails to meet WP:BASIC or WP:AUTHOR. Worldbruce (talk) 09:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yogiyo10 has been confirmed to be a sockpuppet, so I've struck their comments. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:55, 24 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. Consensus is that the articles do not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most Disturbed Person On Planet Earth[edit]

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

Neither in the texts of the articles nor in the references is there any evidence of coming anywhere near to satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The sources cited are IMDb, YouTube, FaceBook, a page on a site selling the films, and a page which appears to be a blog. (PRODs on both articles were removed by the editor who created them.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't really find where this film is ultimately notable enough for an article. Schnittberichte.com initially seemed like it might be usable but offhand the staff page only shows the site's owner and mods rather than a team of editors. (IE, editors can be mods but not all mods are editors.) However even if this was usable it still wouldn't be enough to show notability for this film. Since the sequel was titled the same I was able to search for both films and couldn't find a thing, so this is going to be a delete for both movies. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Schnittberichte has a "team page" showing its editorial staff. We do not care what they may call themselves as long as it has editorial oversight. Seems suitable under WP:RS. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They seem notable enough given Wikipedia:Notability guidelines for media considering the amount of perceived interest online, given only a small amount of looking. Also good to keep in mind given the subject matter of the film is that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored, no matter how someone might feel individually. Thirdly (and finally), given the plethora of less-notable films and media that have passed for notable, these both seem to pass easily. Cardsplayer4life 2ndverse (talk) 12:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is not censored" is irrelevant, as nobody put that forward as a reason for deletion: it is a straw-man argument. Can you clarify what you mean by "the amount of perceived interest online"? Do you mean that it has been mentioned in posts in blogs and forums, or that there is substantial coverage in reliable sources online, or what? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't claim that censorship was put forth as a verbalized argument: I just know that in the past it has often been the underlying (unspoken) reason for content discrimination while other reasoning is put forth formally. (In fact, I would find it quite unlikely that it would be formally stated, even if it were an underlying reason.) In terms of interest, I was referring to formal and informal responses to the media by others online, through text and video. It is quite obvious that it is a piece of media that was produced; it is just the notability of the article that is being questioned. It has been several years since I have been a frequent editor on Wikipedia, but from 2005-2009, I created and maintained a large amount of content. I just find the recent trend towards deletion of content that seemingly has value to people troubling. Personally, I would tend to err on the side of letting content in that might be perceived as non-notable by some vs. deleting content that might be of value. I tend to look at Wikipedia content in a way similar to Blackstone's formulation. ("It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer") In other words, it would be better to let 10 (or 100) potentially non-notable articles in than risk deleting 1 potentially notable article. Obviously, that is a larger debate and doesn't really pertain to these articles, except in the meta sense. It doesn't really matter: I think the subject of the articles is notable and I think it is clear that there are a large enough number of other people that feel the same way online. Obviously you disagree and want to delete it, which is fine. Just remember, everything you delete that someone has spent time on and feels invested in contributes to the often referenced decline of Wikipedia through editor alienation. Cardsplayer4life 2ndverse (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing on the article suggests that WP:NFILM is met, and Googling doesn't provide any sources that would satisfy WP:GNG either. Thus delete unless someone can find reliable sources for this work. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete per lacking enough coverage to meet WP:NF. Though it does seem to have caught the eye of German-language sources,[1][2] it's not enough. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exterminate. I can't believe anybody is giving this "movie" (wanna know what it really is? stolen clips from the internet, many of which have the sites watermarks) the time of day. And it's not even close to being notable. In fact, I'd wager the person who wrote these articles (and there are many parts of both articles that are nearly identical) is the loser who made these films. --74.130.39.89 (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I created the articles and I can guarantee you I did not create the films. "Loser"? Really? Cardsplayer4life 2ndverse (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like it might have caused a buzz on social media/forums, but nothing in reliable sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:47, 19 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) 17:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lady-Comp[edit]

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

Not notable, probable promotion Mnnlaxer (talk) 13:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I didn't WP:PROD this article is the almost certain objection from someone who is promoting this project ~~would object~~. User:BiH is the creator and sole (positive) contributor to the article. The non-notability of Lady-Comp is fairly obvious, as is the fact this article was created for promotional purposes. While there are many hits for Google News searches, they are all PR or blogs. RS for this product will be very hard to find. The Daily Mail article that is the only source right now is likely a paid promotion or at least a conflict of interest. Even if the DM is called a RS in this case, it the sole RS that the article's promoters have found. It is not likely there are others. Note that the fact the device had clinical trials does not make the device notable. Should be obvious, but I'll say it anyway, all medical devices have clinical trials before they are sold in most countries. Mnnlaxer (talk) 13:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:BiH (contributions), the creator and sole contributor to this article, has declared a relationship to the subject. See Talk:Lady-Comp and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Mnnlaxer (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Mnnlaxer (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most sources I could find are press releases. The ones that are reliable do not conform extensive coverage. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 5 hits of HighBeam Research, enough to pass WP:GNG in my opinion. --BiH (talk) 05:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of those five Highbeam hits is a Pink Lady Comp[etition], a kimono giveaway contest; one is a routine trademark issuance; and the other is this press release. Brianhe (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources found; The New York Observer ("The Orgasmatron Finally Shows Up: High-Tech Rhythm" referenced by BiH above) and The Daily Mail ("The fertility computer 'as good as the Pill'" currently referenced in the article) are unsuitable WP:MEDPOP sources. Further, they are both from 2004. Surely if this was notable, at least something in pop press would have appeared since then. — Brianhe (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam, and non-notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In light of this FDA enforcement letter it would be reasonable to conclude that "someone" is paying to have Lady-Comp promoted as a medical device on Wikipedia. I am not a lawyer but maybe this would be a violation of U.S. law and therefore a violation of WP's TOS. — Brianhe (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:BiH has just disclosed themself as having a COI (suspected paid editing, see WP:COIN). Joseph2302 (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found the FDA letter to be the most notable thing about it. Although the "cease and desist" from the FDA would make an interesting addition to the article, I don't see it as enough to keep an article carrying known misinformation around. LaMona (talk) 05:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of WP:42. Zad68 14:16, 21 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. The topic is clearly notable: inclusion is not relative to other articles. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 02:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Women's rights in 2014[edit]

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

Although many of the facts here are notable per se, and have their respective own articles, the topic "Women's rights in 2014" is not notable. It might be a topic for a magazine like Time, but I don't see why Wikipedia should analyze the events of last year. And I even wouldn't say that 2014 was a significant year for women's rights or feminism. And if it becomes a significant year, then we will know it only in many years from now. Wikipedia is not a place to publish original thought. Abaget (talk) 12:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I checked the first six sources currently cited by the article, and all of them describe 2014 as an important year for women's rights or for feminism. Therefore, this topic appears to satisfy WP:GNG, as it has received significant coverage in reliable sources. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. (A gender-related topic, hence this delsort here). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Granger. This is a mature well sourced article on a topic which has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Clearly meets GNG. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you both mention would be a solid argument, if it were not for the fact that the media seems to call more than one year special, or a turning point: in 2013, in 2012, 2012 II, or 2012 III, in 2011, in 2010.

Indeed, the fact that the media named 2014 special, makes the year even more like previous years.

At best, mentioning the fact that 2014 is a turning point could be merged in the Women's rights article. The individual facts are already covered throughout Wikipedia. --Abaget (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that enough sources could be located to support the creation of other articles such as Women's rights in 2013 etc, but lack of other potentially notable articles doesn't justify deletion of this article which meets GNG.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you would have to create a lot of articles. There is nothing remarkable in the wording chosen by those journalists. It is only a hyperbolic style. However, there is another way of dealing with this. The events treated by this article are already covered in other articles. If 2014 was special for some reason, then Timeline of women's rights (other than voting) for example, might be a better place for stating that. No need to create a complete new article with repeated content though. In the form that this article is written, it is just a venue for someone to defend his opinion about how much the feminist movement is making progress.Abaget (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The extensive list of references proves this is a fine topic. Also, of course, the deletion rationale is invalid: Wikipedia has plenty of articles that analyze the events of last year. I give you 2014 in games, 2014 in video gaming, 2014 in philosophy, even 2014 in amusement parks; all of which are parts of series on various years in these topics. --GRuban (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several sources identified 2014 as a watershed year. But even without that, there's no problem in writing articles about developments in women's rights during that or any other year. Sarah ^(talk) 22:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - [year] in [subject] is a pretty standard encyclopedic article format for big subjects highly visible in current events for the year. Hence we have a whole category, Category:Years by topic, with many subcategories. The most similar are probably Category:Years in LGBT rights. That we do not currently have women's right topics by other year doesn't mean we can't have this one. The standard that would apply is whether there exist sufficient sources showing the article subject as notable (looks to be true) and sufficient material to justify a separate article rather than merge it into a broader subject article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Inspired by this discussion, I've started Draft:Women's rights in 2013 and Draft:Women's rights in 2012. They're nowhere near complete or even ready for the articlespace yet. I'll work on them as I can over the next days, but thought I'd drop a line here in case others want to jump in :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:25, 20 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. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 01:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of landfills in the United States[edit]

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

This is nothing more than a rehash of the list within the category, also can be WP:A10 of Landfills in the United States#List of notable landfills. Given that almost every county and many towns/cities have a landfill, this list would be overload of WP:INFO. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 12:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Landfills in the United States. Nominated for deletion around 3.5 hours after creation. Allow time for expansion instead. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lots of room for expansion beyond what can be done in categories. For example, organize by state, size, age, etc. Pburka (talk) 12:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was not expecting to say keep, but I had no idea there are so many notable landfills. WP policy allows a list even if it adds nothing to a category.Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A mention of each one's location would be helpful, but not needed to keep.Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A list with clear inclusion criteria on a notable subject and per WP:CLN. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've organized by state, added important details and removed the stinky wording. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:01, 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 Mikiyo Ohno. History is available for merging; title changes can be discussed elsewhere. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mikiyo Ono[edit]

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

Actress whose notability I can't find at all-only one role total and the wiki in the other language is even more barebones! Wgolf (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to Mikiyo Ohno. This is the same person and is already linked to the Japanese article, which is extensive ja:大野幹代. The other language for Ono is Tagalog and it's a duplicate of the Ohno article, that they also have. Wgolf, I think you can just redirect this. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both to Mikiyo Ōno, nice catch that they're the same person, can't find reliable English sources that she uses the deprecated spelling with the h.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although that page is unsourced it seems. Surprised nobody said anything before! Wgolf (talk) 02:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the OCLC World Catalog (http://www.worldcat.org/identities/np-ohno,%20mikiyo/) does use the Mikiyo Ohno spelling for her Zero Woman appearance so there is some precedent for this use in English. In any case, a merger to either Mikiyo Ohno or Mikiyo Ōno seems the best solution. Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mikiyo Ohno. Merge because this article contains some information not in the destination article, and to keep the alternate spelling. After the merge, that article can be moved to Mikiyo Ōno if people don't care for the Ohno spelling. But Ono and Ohno should be kept at least as redirects as both have some some currency on the web. – Margin1522 (talk) 13:28, 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 List of hotels in the Caribbean. After 2 relists no support for keeping this as a separate article. The history is there if anyone thinks anything should be merged to the list. Davewild (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ritz-Carlton Aruba[edit]

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

Non-notable hotel, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP Joseph2302 (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of hotels in the Caribbean. Content is verifiable, but from source searches, it seems that the topic has not received enough coverage to qualify for a standalone article. There is this New York Post article, but presently not finding additional sources that provide significant coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:48, 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 Deodorant#History. Consensus that there is insufficient coverage for a separate article, but a redirect to Deodorant#History where she is now mentioned is supported. Davewild (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Barnett Diserens[edit]

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

Wow, the creator of underarm deodrant. Fails WP:1E, WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She recieved notice at death from the New York Times. She was a significant advancer in chemistry and the article should be kept.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article indicates that she invented the roll-on mechanism, not the product (Ban, which was still sold through the 1970's). At the same time, this actually is the sort of information that likely is encyclopedic. Given the fact that the present article is a fairly slavish recreation of an obit. format, if this is all that anyone can say, then it would be a merge/redirect. I suspect, though, that there is more to say. I hope that it's found. Otherwise, there would need to be a merge of relevant information at a couple of articles (for the products she was an innovator on). (By no means should there be a flat "delete." Female engineers and business women are under-documented already.) Hithladaeus (talk) 18:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to deodorant - unfortunately I don't see the required coverage necessary. She's mentioned a lot for her invention, but no significant coverage of her. FYI Johnpacklambert, The NY Times obituary was a paid death notice and not actual reporting. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Deodorant#History, where I've replaced some marketing exec claimed as the inventor with her name. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Thank you for doing that. From the 1940's to the 1980's, American corporations did basic research, and there were women and African American inventors/developers whose contributions are hard to disentangle. (Famously, the man who invented ibuprofen got a watch for his work.) Not every one of these was Bell Labs or Kodak's Eastman labs, so it's cool that we've rescued easily-missed information. Hithladaeus (talk) 00:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to keep this article, but just cannot at the moment find enough sources. I did add a reference to the NYT article of 1952 when Ban Roll-on was a WOW product. I also added that to the Deodorant page, and have a few more to add to that. If we redirect, then at least there is a starting point if more info is discovered. LaMona (talk) 04:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:29, 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 keep. Davewild (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kaymu[edit]

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

no evidence for notability. All new technology companies are listed in telechruch and similar sources, which are therefore essentially nonselective directories as far as reliability for notability is concerned DGG ( talk ) 17:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:- Subject of the article is a Nigeria's leading online marketplace per Vanguard News, The Punch Newspaper, Daily Independent Newspaper and New Telegraph. I also found The Nation News, The punch News, this Nigeria Communication Week, Punch News to mention but few. In fact "Kaymu" had been the subject of 1000+ reliable sources. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:- Subject definitely notable enough. Outside tech blogs, found respected news sources discussing Kaymu in other topics: Daily Times, Daily Independent, The Punch Newspaper, The Guardian, as well as other African and Asian newspapers - online and offline: CP Africa, The Daily Star, DailyPost, All Africa, This Day Live. Captainzarmani (talk) 13:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The reliable sources found above are definitely sufficient to establish notability. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:02, 24 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. LaMona has shown the sources here and on the article do not establish notability and so by strength of argument the consensus is for delete. Davewild (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Policinski[edit]

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

Known only for being CEO of a company, fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep CEO of very large company active in the public sphere, lots of coverage ([3][4][5][6][7]). Antrocent (♫♬) 19:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kraxler (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on links listed by Antrocent: #1 is an interview (does not establish notability); #2 & #4 are by him, not about him; #3 is possibly an RS, although it isn't clear if the Forbes award is a significant one; #5 is brief and about the company. In the article #1 is a directory listing, #2 is an interview, #3 is a dead link. So I do not see sufficient RS for notability in a BLP. Delete LaMona (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:17, 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 keep. Davewild (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Jefferson[edit]

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

Non-notable women's (gridiron) football player, fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The references and awards support notability.--Rpclod (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - multiple honors are enough to meet WP:ANYBIO, WP:NGRIDIRON is therefore not required —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimandia, the problem with relying on ANYBIO is that there is very little evidence that the awards the subject received are themselves notable per WP:GNG, or significant or well-knonw. Remember an award sponsored by a magazine, for which the only significant coverage appears in that magazine, is not independent of the subject, and therefore not an acceptable basis for determining notability per GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By honors I meant the Hall of Fame inductions rather than the awards. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see being inducted into the Semi-Pro Football Hall of Fame as a notable enough achievement. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to pass WP:GNG to me instead of failing as the nominator asserts.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:11, 22 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) 18:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WyzAnt[edit]

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

Non-notable web page, and so promotional. Fails WP:GNG, WP:CORP, WP:WEB and WP:PROMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article already contains one article from Forbes and one article in Entrepreneur. Both are written by staff journalists and in both WyzAnt is the subject of the article. Both papers are reputable, established, national-level publications. Appears to pass WP:CORP. CorporateM (Talk) 07:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure but maybe weak keep since it's neat and sourced. My searches didn't find much here, here and here and, in fact, the current two news sources may be some of the best coverage there is. The Entrepreneur and Forbes are good sources and may be potential for future coverage although my results only show a somewhat stable (not that much) amount a year. SwisterTwister talk 04:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per CorporateM. Plus it passes another informal tech startup test, which is that it is still growing and successful after a number of years, so that the coverage isn't just a one-time buzz when the company is launched. – Margin1522 (talk) 14:19, 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) 18:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CTM Madison Family Theatre[edit]

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

Unsourced, no claim of notability, just another theatre company Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to indicate notability.Pincrete (talk) 20:37, 20 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) 18:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Monday Morning (Christina Aguilera song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS, there's no independent third party notability except for one source and a minor chart placement in a minor market. Everything here could be merged to the album article and nothing would be missed. Delete this article and merge its contents. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 02:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSONGS; one reliable source alone giving independent coverage is simply not enough. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable song. Koala15 (talk) 23:22, 23 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International Handball Tournament of Poland[edit]

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

Event may not be notable. Appears to fail wp:LASTING as event was only last month and there appears to be no talk of recurrence. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC) Withdrawn there are lots of sources under the Polish name. Happy Squirrel (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

please, before deletion just try to search Międzynarodowy Turniej w Piłce Ręcznej Mężczyzn. there is plenty of source about the tournament in polish, maybe one or more will meet wp:LASTING criteria. thanks. Argemiro1975 (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are google hits for coverage in sources that fail WP:RS - regional, social media, etc. I am not seeing what would make this pass WP:GNG. Sport-spam - not all sport events are notable. The best source I was able to find is a short news piece at [8]. and it seems like an advert (spends most coverage on discussing different tickets and prices). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that the nominator has withdrawn, stating that "lots of sources under the Polish name" exist. However, because a delete !vote remains present, this cannot be closed at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:12, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE Davewild (talk) 18:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CPJ Entertainment Center[edit]

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

All my searches found not even a single good source talking about this theatre. It would be nice if Wikipedia had an article for every theatre but there's particularly nothing notable not to mention no good sources. I considered PRODing this but I wanted a consensus instead and I also considered moving elsewhere but there's no target. SwisterTwister talk 04:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 06:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:07, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Meyers[edit]

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

Essentially unreferenced. It's translated from Spanish wikipedia with the same dead links.Fuddle (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe just a refimprove will suffice. This isn't BLP as I first thought. Fuddle (talk) 01:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 06:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Rolling Stone award —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:07, 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. —SpacemanSpiff 09:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan(film)[edit]

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

Incorrect WP:MoS on film titles, and WP: NFF violation as there is no confirmation on when filming begins Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Ali Abbas Zafar Aditya Chopra, Sultan Salman Khan, Sultan Parineeti Chopra, Sultan Yash Raj Films, Sultan YRF's Sultan

Soft delete of this sad stub in desperate need of expansion. I found that in November 2014 Indian Express told us that filming would begin mid 2015. And in March 2015 Deccan Chronicle told us that filming will begin "soon". And also in March 2015, Bollywood Hungama describes the role to be played by Salman Khan and Daily News & Analysis tells us the film is expected to release on EID 2016 (that'd be early July). 2 weeks ago (June 2015), Indian Express discusses casting. My own research performed, I need to underscore that this film topic has LOTS of coverage and any issues with a film article's format are easily addressable and not a valid deletion rationale. What that leaves us is that we simply do not have confirmation of filming actually having begun and so, even with coverage, this topic is simply TOO SOON. We do have enough sources speaking about this film's pre-production so that it can be spoken of and sourced in articles of director, producer, production company, and stars as a project about to begin filming... but it fails WP:NFF (paragraph 3) for a separate article. Allow undeletion or recreation once we have confirmation. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this has been deleted already (It is on my watchlist but not sure when I added it but I must of put it up before!) Anway, Delete for now. Wgolf (talk) 01:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if this is deleted, then please also delete File:Sultan First Look Poster.png used under fair use in the article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:19, 24 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. Consensus is that both of the articles do not meet the notability guidelines. This AFD does not prevent anyone from recreating redirects to the company. Davewild (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adi Kunalic[edit]

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

College football player whose career wasn't notable, see WP:ATHLETE. Co-founder of a perhaps notable company, Opendorse. I redirected the separate articles on Kunalic and his partner Blake Lawrence to Opendorse, but the article author reverted me. I propose that both the Kunalic and Lawrence articles be made redirects to Opendorse. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are many college players on Wikipedia whose careers were not very notable. See Major Culbert, Lydon Murtha and Nate Swift. All had equal or less notable careers than Kunalic. Kunalic is also the first Bosnian born NFL player which is pretty notable. I propose that both articles remain due to their college football careers as well as their entrepreneurship endeavors with successful companies, one of which is a partner with the NFLPA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwarfinterns (talk • contribs) 19:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Culbert, Lydon Murtha, and Swift each appeared in a regular season professional (NFL/CFL) game, which is our minimum standard for notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is not mentioned on Culbert's page that he appeared in game although I do see the link for cfl.com with his stats. Also, wouldn't the fact that Kunalic and Lawrence are both founders of a Sports Marketing company along with their college playing experience be enough to be notable? I just want to do whatever I need to do to have these articles stand, so if you have any recommendations please let me know. Dwarfinterns (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- No, it wouldn't. I suspect dozens of former college players have been involved in sports marketing. Opendorse itself is only marginally notable. Having three separate articles (one each on Opendorse and on each founder) smacks of promotion/advertising to me. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- - Are there any edits that can be made to the page to make it stand, such as removing most of the opendorse and Hurrdat content? Or are they both overall not notable enough and will be deleted anyway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwarfinterns (talk • contribs) 01:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing shows that WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:NCOLLATH criteria are met.--Rpclod (talk) 04:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence that shows notability. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 01:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google and Highbeam searches reveal extensive coverage of his startup company including NPR's All Things Considered. If he is the first Bosnian born football player in he NFL, that would be another basis for notability. I have little reason to doubt it, but I haven't found a source to support it.--I am One of Many (talk) 07:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of significant coverage of the subject in multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG, the claim of being the first "Bosnian-born player signed by an NFL team," or the like, is irrelevant. We do not have a specific guideline for the "first player of a given ethnicity" in a given sports league, and I hope we never do. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - References have been added for both Kunalic and Lawrence. I found one for Kunalic that supports the "first bosnian in the NFL" claim.Dwarfinterns (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment to Use:I am One of Many above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a free resume hosting service.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable former college football player. Does not satisfy the the specific notability guidelines for college athletes per WP:NCOLLATH (no major national awards), nor professional football players per WP:NGRIDIRON (never played in a regular season NFL or CFL game). There is also insufficient significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to satsify the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if you ever have any doubt as to whether a former college football player played in the NFL or CFL, and thereby satisfed WP:NGRIDIRON, check NFL.com and CFLapedia.com -- both have complete listings of players who ever appeared in and NFL or CFL game. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:58, 23 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. slakr^\ talk / 06:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Van Kirk[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:WCS100 (creator) with the following edit summary: "Has more than a few references and I'm finding several more in a Google search. We better play this out via AfD before we toss this much content". Well, we are here now; I don't see any refs that add proper, reliable, in-depth coverage. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Piotrus, I think you'd be aware by now that AfD isn't for articles that don't have references that "add proper, reliable, in-depth coverage." AfD is for determining if a subject is notable or not and it doesn't appear that your nomination has done any of the WP:BEFORE work to determine that. A nomination that only points out my disagreement with a PROD seems as close to a non-argument as you can get.

Here are a list of references I found in just a few minutes that aren't included in the list already found in the article. In depth interview, LA Weekly coverage of Van Kirk's work, Book about Van Kirk being a "notable", Subject becomes Chili's spokesperson.

Outside of these references and the ones in the article, it seems clear to me, based on the articles about him or pointing him out in USA Today, Variety, LA Weekly, AV Club, and Splitsider, that the subject of this article plays notable role in area of comedy podcasts. He's also a current performer for Upright Citizens Brigade which was started by and produces notable members regularly. He also is a writer for the news website www.Cover32.com. I personally think that he satisfies WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO (point 2) with the independent and significant coverage form reliable sources but I also feel that the subject satisfies point 3 of WP:ENTERTAINER in that his body of work on specific podcasts has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. WCS100 (talk) 01:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More for Yahoo Movies and Variety about a show the subject writes. WCS100 (talk) 01:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WCS100: You are right this is about notability. And notability does not only require sources, it requires reliable sources. And what I am saying is not that this article is unreferenced (which, I agree with you, is not an AfD problem), but rather, than the existing references I see (including ones you presented) are not reliable, and thus do not help to establish the subject's notability.

Let's start with your book finding. Following your link I cannot get a preview view, but the publisher is Emereo Publishing. From [9]: "So what Roebuck/Tebbo/ Emereo have done is take publically available and randomly selected Wikipedia articles and charge for it." I am afraid that your source is nothing but a printed fork of our article(s).

Next, you find [10]. Well, it may be an in-depth interview; it also appears to be a podcast, an audio-version of blog.

[11] LA Weekly passes RS test; but our subject fails at any kind of in-depth, substanial coverage - he is mentioned there in passing, in a single sentence plus picture caption.

[12] Next, we have a short news blurb in a regional, niche website (" centralized agency founded to share knowledge of "bureau-approved" comedy throughout the Greater Los Angeles area and spread joy in the form of live comedy to all citizens we can possibly reach."). That fails WP:QUESTIONABLE and WP:AUD.

So, unless you can present sources that show him passing GNG/ARTIST, AfD is the right place for him to be. And please, don't just spam links here, but provide a review of them: explain why the source is reliable, and the extent of their coverage of the subject (passing mentions do not count). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any substantial sources about him. The best so far is the LA Weekly review of a show he starred in [13], but that's only one source. The refs here are either links to his "performances" (as podcasts), or mentions. The Comedy Bureau is a blog. Link #9 is unrelated (and an empty page). I can't find a reason to keep this, unless someone discovers a few more RS. LaMona (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Simple search shows me that this actor is widely known not only in his country. I believe that the requirements to finalize the article is enough. Shad Innet (talk) 10:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply being in Google is not enough to prove notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 00:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I searched online and found nothing that suggests the subject meets WP:ENTERTAINER criteria. He gets some coverage as a comedian, but no more than the vast majority of other comedians. Maybe someday he will be notable, but not yet.--Rpclod (talk) 03:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: This fellow is very much on the edge of the line between sufficient and insufficient note by independent RS. I think, if we scrutinize every source, we can find imperfections, but, taken all in all, they indicate so many discussions that the comedian either passes or is going to pass within a few months. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you are saying WP:TOOSOON, which is an argument for deletion and restoration at a future date. We don't keep articles because we think someone is going to be notable in the near future. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I appreciate the help to a newbie, but I actually wasn't saying that. I was suggesting that this person's career is moving so quickly that "TOOSOON" may not be relevant. I did not want to invoke that because the number of appearances and comments he is receiving in the past year, on different platforms, makes it seem like a fairly safe bet. I could be wrong. I often am. However, I do try to work on a "benefit of the doubt goes toward keep." My benefit of doubt is less than a lot of people's, but it still exists. One person thinks it's gullibility, another thinks its cynicism, but I think it's a good faith judgment. (If the guidelines could make the calls by themselves, we people wouldn't be necessary.) Hithladaeus (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Hithladaeus: Would you mind telling me which of the sources that mention him seem reliable? Please check my review of sources I posted above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:05, 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. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Davewild (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lofton (author)[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. The various publications appear to be more or less self published (the "Working Towards Reunion" by Lulu.com). Google search finds no independent coverage. DePRODded by original editor, with no comment (also removing appropriate maintenance tag at same time). PamD 06:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted because Michael Lofton is a noted figure, as his self published works have been endorsed by some of the greatest scholars in Catholic Theology, such as Scott Hahn and Mike Aquilina. Also, his articles on Church Militant reach thousands of people daily. As far as google and independent coverage, simply google Michael Lofton Catholic and plenty comes up. Please remove the deletion request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignatiusseraphim (talk • contribs) 23:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC) — Ignatiusseraphim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Self-published being the key phrase, that doesn't show any notability. As a result, fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOUR, so Delete. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What we lack here are third-party sources. The references are books and articles by him, and an interview (which is considered by him) but nothing substantial about him. I didn't find any better sources doing searches. I don't doubt that he is respected in his area, but it looks to me like he hasn't achieved WP-level notability yet. LaMona (talk) 06:10, 20 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. slakr^\ talk / 06:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Johnson (musician)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable.Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Full member of only one notable band. (Brian Welch solo and Love and Death are the same thing. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. It was deleted on the first AfD and recreated shortly after. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Drummer for two notable bands (Love & Death and Red). Three pieces specifically devoted to the subject: [14] [15] [16]. Not sure if there are more out there—I didn't check. Walter Görlitz (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson is not a prominent member of Red, just a touring drummer. All those sources are in relation to Dan Johnson of Love and Death. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or AT A MINIMUM redirect) - The very first AFD regarding Johnson was held in 2011, long before he joined R3D or Digital Summer. Johnson is a percussionist for two notable bands, R3D and Love and Death. In addition to the articles that Görlitz mentions, there are articles at [17] and [18] that discuss Johnson. Per these pages [19], [20] as well as [21], Johnson is also performing with Digital Summer and Against All Will, two other notable bands. If the page cannot be kept, it should, at a minimum, be redirected with history to "Love and Death (band)" [or perhaps "Red (American band)"]. Additionally, Johnson has performed with regular MTV2 band The Sammus Theory as well as performing with Mayhem Festival 2011 Battle of the Bands winner Back from Ashes. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a prominent member of Digital Summer and Against All Will. Back from Ashes and The Sammus Theory are not notable. Sources don't discuss him, they mention him. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Johnson's body of work is sizable. While Johnson is described as a "temporary" percussionist for R3D, he contributed all of the percussion to their album Of Beauty and Rage. Additionally, temporary is only as temporary as temporary is. Johnson has now been working with R3D for at least one year, and has toured with them fairly extensively. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:17, 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. (soft) slakr^\ talk / 06:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The High Learys[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Has a lot of sources but most are not reliable. Band lacks charting, airplay awards. Releases are not on "important" label. Touring lacks coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inclined to delete because my searches found nothing significant and notable and I don't think any of these links are significant and notable. SwisterTwister talk 20:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 00:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am against deleting the article, at least at this time. We should improve the article and give it a more objective point of view, as well as give it a more precise expression--that is assuming we can find the necessary sources. Let's try to make it a better article, before we prematurely throw it in the trash can. There may be something here that is workable. Garagepunk66 (talk) 15:15, 21 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Archives Wales[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Arb with the following rationale "You may be right but it deserves at least an AfD. Also, did you google "Archives Wales" with the quotes; plenty of hits". Well, I cannot find any hits which make it pass the above notability reqs, or Wikipedia:Notability (websites). It exists, it is linked to, but where is the in-depth coverage by independent sources? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are extensive links from eliable sources and some media coverage under its previous branding Archives Network wales. Martinlc (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Are Archives Wales and Archives Network Wales functionally related? If so, there seems to be enough coverage to support notability. [22][23][24] --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: yes they are related - Archives Network Wales was rebranded as Archives Wales. There are references to ANW in the technical section of the website [[25]]Martinlc (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just a website. No notability. If it held archives itself then it would have notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to meet GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a vote. You need to explain how it seems to meet this policy. Because I did explain how it does not meet it, and your vote it therefore a simple WP:ITSNOTABLE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
Arxiloxos's sources from the BBC, the Western Mail, and the Liverpool Daily Post each provide nontrivial coverage of Archives Wales (which was formerly called Archives Network Wales).
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Archives Wales to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:57, 26 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. slakr^\ talk / 22:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

X Tour (Ed Sheeran tour)[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed WP:NCONCERT TOUR requirement. " It was deprodded by User:AGoodDoctor (creator) with the following rationale "There is loads of information about this tour, however, time just needs to be put in ensuring the range of setlists are uploaded, as well as reviews, which are all on the internet, are put into this article". Well, I am not seeing any reliable sources. Blogs, facebook, niche music sites selling tickets or merchandise, fansite, etc. - those exit, sure. But we need to show more reliable coverage. Not every tour of every band is notable, and it is high time to start pruning the fancruft minor band tour listings that are being spammed here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep - no, not every tour is notable, but nearly completely sold out 179-city world tours featuring one of the top-selling musicians of the past few years are notable. Hmmm, at least I think. Having to add a third show at Wembley Stadium because the first two sell out is probably fancruft minor band tour stuff :-) Google News search: Ed Sheeran + tour + sold out —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't get to snow with the first comment :P And I am afraid your search is incorrect; you just search for his tours in general. The correct search changes "tour" to "x tour", and shows much fewer hits. I see some that discuss the concert in passing, but only one reliable, on-topic article: mtv.com entry - and that is quite brief. If you disagree, please list better sources here, and discuss their reliability, and extent of their coverage. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can snow keep with a first comment because there is no way this is being deleted. I'm not even an Ed Sheeran fan in particular and I recognize when a tour meets GNG. No, the correct search does not have to be "x tour" because many articles will not refer to the tour by that name; it's just "tour" as in his current tour, as in the tour he's been on since last year, as in the tour he's doing to support his current album. Since there's only ever been one other Ed Sheeran tour, that search term will likely bring up relevant articles. Also the tour is also referred to as the Multiply tour (since that is how they pronounce the X). I'm not going to waste time looking for refs on this unless there becomes an actual chance this article will be deleted. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Bottom line you have failed to provide a single reliable source. Just saying "Google is full of them" is worthless, because my Google is clearly different from yours. Unless you provide sources for us to discuss, all I see is WP:ITSOBVIOUS-type of an argument. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - If this article is in any jeopardy of actually being deleted (ie other editors support deletion), I will take the time to research sources. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This essentially an ADVERT for a world tour promoting an album. Possibly merge (as a few sentences) to the article on the album with a link to a website listing the events. The promoter will ensure that is kept up to date, but we cannot be sure that this article will be. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral comment Unless you're on the fossil county fair circuit, aren't all concert tours pretty much road shows advertising albums? And I would assume it's Ed's fanbase, not his promo team whose keeping this article up to date. Nate • (chatter) 23:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kraxler (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable tour by a notable artist. Article can be updated with better references if necessary. Andise1 (talk) 05:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it is necessary. Please find said better references first, then vote. Because nobody found such references so far. And without it, your post is just WP:ITSNOTABLE invalid-type of a vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this tour includes three sold out Wembley Stadium shows. Relevant enough. ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 20:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be an advert of the tour. Never even heard of the fellow. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 00:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I just added the just-announced news that a documentary concert film will be filmed at London's Wembley Stadium during this tour, making this tour notable enough for more than just the live musical performances.

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) JAaron95 (Talk) 14:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What Kind of Man Are You?[edit]

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

Article doesn't establish it's notability, and reads like an ad. True CRaysball | ^#RaysUp 05:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pinging editors listed at WP:INDAFD to help establish possible notability: @Dharmadhyaksha, Titodutta, Dwaipayanc, TheOriginalSoni, and Jayantanth:@Soham, Jim Cartar, Cutest Penguin, and Rsrikanth05:. Also, I found some links, while they may not be WP:RS or significant coverage, they may help to establish verifiability and notability: A B C D E -War wizard90 (talk) 06:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first two links are very reliable. I'll look out for more. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - here's a good one: NBC News article —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can't say, either way. I actually remember passing coverage of the media campaign in English language media (or notice of it) in global segments. I don't doubt that it existed, nor that it was remarked upon and praised. Since it was a public service campaign, it definitely got seen and heard by a large audience (more than many actresses in a single role). Whether a single season media educational initiative generates enough long term reference to need contextualizing (rather than a discussion in another article -- one on public awareness campaigns), I can't decide. If so, then keep. If not, then neutral. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like an ad campaign for an NGO, which doesn't necessarily make it notable. Can't seem to find much info on the awards it has won, either. I think it should be purged. Solntsa90 (talk) 00:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:GNG having received ongoing significant coverage in reliable sources. Promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. Source examples include:

Reproductive Health Matters. May 1, 2007. (subscription required)
Planet India. p. 248.
NBC News. February 28, 2006.
The Times of India. August 3, 2005.
The Hindu. June 4, 2005.
Sify. June 3, 2005
Gulf News. May 18, 2005.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article meets the general notability guidelines and have significance coverage in reliable sources. @War wizard90 and TrueCRaysball: as @Northamerica1000: suggested that the tone of the article should be improved as per Wikipedia standards instead of ditching it.— CutestPenguin^Hangout 05:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cutest Penguin: I never suggested that we ditch it, I merely added a neutral comment. However, given the sources provided by Northamerica1000 I have no issues with keeping this article. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

War wizard90 (talk · contribs) I didn't actually meant that you or anyone else suggesting to ditch the article out of Wikipedia

. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 05:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to meet WP:GNG. --92slim (talk) 18:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @92slim:Care to tells us how it fails to meet GNG? Or is a keep argument of - "meets WP:GNG" a sufficient enough rebuttal to your argument? -War wizard90 (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that on Wikipedia, the absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable. Topic notability is based upon source availability, rather than the state of sourcing in articles. However, sources were added to the article after it was nominated. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to HIV/AIDS in India - There are sufficient sources to cover it on Wikipedia in some fashion -- I just don't think there's enough for a stand-alone article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient sources in article now (June 21) to indicate notability of the subject.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:38, 21 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 Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences#Publications. --MelanieN (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

INFORMS Transactions on Education[edit]

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

Article de-PRODded by creator without reason given. PROD reason still stands: Non-notable journal. Indexed in Academic Journal Guide, but not in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 06:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences#Publications, where it is mentioned. While the journal seems to fail general notability guidelines WP:GNG and WP:NJournals criteria, the existence of and very basic facts about the journal are verifiable. The journal name is a plausible search term. Hence a redirect to a section of the article on the sponsoring institute, containing a list of INFORMS journals, seems reasonable. --Mark viking (talk) 03:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 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. A mixed bag of responses by editors, but none to keep. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Babozai[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. Searches turned up information on the town and no evidence of notability for this sub-set of the clan. It seems it can also be spelt Babuzai. I considered a merge or redirect to Yusufzai (Pashtun tribe), where it is not mentioned, but as this entire sub-stub is unreferenced and unverified, I thought it best not to; no evidence that they are worth a mention/redirect. Babozai, Mardan (the town) should be moved to this page - clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and the vast majority of the incoming links to this page were meant for the twon, resolving them now. Boleyn (talk) 06:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Not entirely sure - Books found some results to at least confirm they exist with some not so good sources here (not as definite). This is likely another case of non-English and offline sources considering this is Pakistan (along with the low use of technology by these people, I'm presuming). SwisterTwister talk 20:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Yusufzai (Pashtun tribe) it's a small fraction and most commonly used spellings are Babuzai. sami ^talk 23:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No point in a redirect to Yusufzai (which is the article's actual title; the suggested target above is a redirect). This subject is not mentioned there, and nothing in this article is verified. Also, it appears that this article is standing in the way of an article about the town, which IS notable and verified and is the primary meaning of Babozai. --MelanieN (talk) 21:22, 24 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of images in Gray's Anatomy: I. Embryology[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Also proposing:

List of images in Gray's Anatomy: II. Osteology
List of images in Gray's Anatomy: III. Syndesmology
List of images in Gray's Anatomy: IV. Myology
List of images in Gray's Anatomy: V. Angiology
List of images in Gray's Anatomy: VI. The Arteries
List of images in Gray's Anatomy: VII. The Veins
List of images in Gray's Anatomy: VIII. The Lymphatic system
List of images in Gray's Anatomy: IX. Neurology
List of images in Gray's Anatomy: X. The Organs of the senses and the Common integument
List of images in Gray's Anatomy: XI. Splanchnology

Many of these galleries were created in 2006 when a large amount of content was taken from Gray's Anatomy 20th edition (1918) and put onto Wikipedia, a process that greatly expanded our anatomical content. They are duplicated in greater detail by the much more expansive commons category: commons:Category:Gray's Anatomy plates

However, Wikipedia has now expanded beyond the point where these galleries are useful to readers. Readers would be better served by going to commons where there are a wider variety of images from more sources of more structures and many in higher quality. I think the reason that these were created in general was to help create articles and because commons did not have the widely accepted function in 2006 that it does not. Now that articles have been expanded I think these have fulfilled their purpose. We do not have "List of images in [source]" for any other groups of articles I can think of. As Wikipedia is not a gallery (WP:NOTGALLERY) and in view of what I've said, I'm proposing deletion.

This proposal mirrors a "testing the waters" proposal for the twelfth list in which consensus was to delete: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of images in Gray's Anatomy: XII. Surface anatomy and Surface Markings
This proposal follows a previous proposal in 2007 of which consensus was to transwiki the content. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of images in Gray's Anatomy: I. Embryology)
Wikiproject Anatomy notified: [26]
Articles plastered with templates and this deletion nomination moved to a more appropriate title. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--Tom (LT) (talk) 03:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki all of them per nominator (I do not expect anyone to disagree). The procedure might be a bit tricky though (read: I did not understand the instructions), notably there might be tricks with the license. Tigraan (talk) 12:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - these lists are redundant and unnecessary, all images are already at Commons. Previous AfD closed as "transwiki to Wikisource", but are they at Wikisource? Anybody who wants to see these images can go to Gray's Anatomy and check out the Commons link. Kraxler (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like what Kraxler said, users can easily search for those images on Wiki Commons. The lists don't really serve any purpose now. — TaqPol _talk _contrib 07:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. --92slim (talk) 18:24, 18 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Vargas[edit]

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

Non-notable biography. A soldier of no particular oustanding accomplishment, and an actor in a few minor indie films. References to minor mentions in blogs only. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 01:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article has few reliable sources, and I was unable to find much on the subject. Does not meet GNG. It should also be noted that the article PROD'ed for the same reasons, but the tag was removed by the primary contributor. Pax Verbum 02:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too soon by all means and he only has two movies still in production with my searches of course finding nothing good aside from this. This would almost read more like his personal website or a resume-like page at IMDb where it should only be mentioned at the latter (IMDb) for now. SwisterTwister talk 18:26, 19 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 as G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (Adil m104) in violation of ban or block. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest paid Bengal actors[edit]

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

Non-notable and unsourced listing. Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has absolutely no place in an encyclopedia, the salaries are pure guesswork anyway I'd imagine.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think this kind of list is never notable, if properly sourced - there are similar, sourced, lists for American TV actors, for instance. The key word being sourced. This list isn't; there are assertions of sources but I have not been able to find the information on the websites indicated. I also suspect that the creator might be a sock of a blocked user, and the article created in order to promote one of the actors in the list, but that's just a suspicion. --bonadea contributions talk 10:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As it turned out, the creator was a sockpuppet (SPI) so I've tagged the article for speedy deletion. --bonadea contributions talk 21:25, 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Airbackup[edit]

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

Non-notable software, fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFTWARE. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Includes multiple outside references. Similar format used as those included on the wikipedia page titled Comparison of online backup services "Keep" Technologyedit (talk) 20:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC) — Technologyedit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete unless better sources are found but my searches found none here, here and here (this is the best my searches found, nothing at Books and Thefreelibrary). SwisterTwister talk 04:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~HB ^{Chat ♽ Contribs} 01:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above (WP:GNG). There are no sources that discuss the notability, significance, or direct cultural impact of this software. The only sources I found were reviews and promotional materials, nothing that asserts this product as warranting its own Wikipedia page. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:39, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stelios Coucounaras[edit]

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

Previously contested PROD and speedy delete. No indication of reliability, no reliable sources provided. Fails WP:NMUSIC. mikeman67 (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Have searched for German sources (one states that he has been living there for fifty years).[27] There are only a few mentions, mostly for his composing for brass, esp. tubas. Seems to be liked by advanced instrumentalists.[28] But that is not enough for WP:COMPOSER. --Ben Ben (talk) 09:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:BIO (specifically WP:ENT and WP:COMPOSER). I could not find any sources to meet the guidelines mentioned and assert that this person has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works for his composition / music, has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following, or has any awards, honors, etc. for his mentioned work. Almost fails WP:GNG as well. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable per WP:ENT and WP:COMPOSER. Quis separabit? 02:33, 18 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) 01:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neptune Oil Company[edit]

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

All the sources appear to be fan sites, not reliable sources. One of them is nothing more than a picture of an oil can, one is someone's personal musings about the company, and the others seem to be oriented toward collectors of memorabilia. None of them demonstrate significant notability. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Confused: Here it says the NOC was sold to the Lever Group in 1914. Article has links that say it was sold to Shell Oil and then again began operating under the NOC name. Then there is a U.S. Congressional investigation [29] [30], stating NOC is a Panamanian company owned 70 percent by one of the Moncriefs. It's possible Moncrief bought it and then registered it in Panama for business reasons. Same company? —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply because a solid article can't be made, this, this and this seem to confirm it was owned by "Shell of Australia". Newspapers Archive found other results (some from 1916 and 1926) such as this 1962 ad that says "One of Australia's oldest established oil companies. Books (a few of these results confirm it was sold to Lever Group), highbeam and thefreelibrary found results that weren't as fruitful. I would've suggested moving elsewhere but there's no target. SwisterTwister talk 21:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to this link, Neptune was an Australia-wide chain of petrol stations in the 1950s.[31] A few old photos are here, which says it existed as a separate brand until 1969.[32]. Also "King Neptune" was an Adelaide landmark at Darlington, South Australia, until 1991 according to these (reliable, ABC) sources.[33] [34] That's enough to make the company well known in mid-20th century popular culture, and therefore notable. Due to the era, web-based sources will be hard to find, but that doesn't mean it's not notable. A kind of similar situation to Golden Fleece Company, another defunct Australian petrol station chain, though admittedly Golden Fleece was around for longer. Further comment: lots of WP:RS hits, mainly on official archive type sites, if you restrict the google search to domains in .gov.au [35]. Adpete (talk) 06:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Neptune was a notable player in the Australian oil retail industry - viz http://trove.nla.gov.au/result?q=neptune+oil - falling for the google search only trick doesnt help delete arguments, trove has enough, it was a notable operator in Australian history. JarrahTree 01:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on trove link provided by JarrahTree theres 82,000 articles linked, 77,000 newspaper mentions, 2000 books in Australian GLAMS... and yes there will big chunks of advertising and probably some random occurrences where neptune and oil appear in the same article but definately notably company/retailer of oil products in Australia.. Gnan garra 03:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am not seeing a majority of fan sites as references but a good mix of sources. This is an interesting historical topic for an important industry - exactly the sort of article we should have. - Shiftchange (talk) 21:30, 20 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. WP:SOFTDELETE. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rochelle Gadd[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was deleted back in January and then moved to an editors userspace in May - That user had added a few sources and then disappeared so I've moved it back to article space

Most sources in the article are very minimal mentions, YouTube videos and a wikipedia article, I still can't find any evidence of notability and so I still believe she fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. –Davey2010^Talk 21:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. –Davey2010^Talk 21:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. –Davey2010^Talk 21:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Of all my searches, I only found two links at thefreelibrary; no significant and notable coverage and this isn't surprising as she has not had any major roles. SwisterTwister talk 19:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kraxler (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GetSimple CMS[edit]

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

Despite many refs, none seem to show any notability at all. Fails basic WP:GNG . There are very many CMS packages out there and this has nothing special to commend it in terms of notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All my searches found nothing else aside from the current sources. Unless notability is established and other sources are found, I'm inclined to delete. SwisterTwister talk 20:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can find a few sources not used in the current article showing that it has some, albeit limited, coverage. [1] (a review of the software), [2] Unfortunately, these sources do not provide me with enough evidence to confidently say that the software is notable enough to keep the article. However, I believe it is just lacking some other coverage so am not currently making a vote just yet. — Jordan Mussi ^Talk 15:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 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. Reliable sources are king. They're missing here, so fails notability. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Pugh (computer programmer)[edit]

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

Lack of reliable, independent sources. This article was nominated for deletion over a year ago and the close stated a lack of consensus. No productive edits have occurred since that time so I am renominating it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ken Pugh (Fellow Consultant)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe delete - This would seem like it could be notable but I'm not finding many sources good aside from here, here and here (and I searched, News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary). Most of the results are self-authored and not much third-party or overall good coverage. SwisterTwister talk 17:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is always hard to find independent sources for people who work on the commercial side of computing rather than the academic side. While he is not as well known as Steve McConnell or Steve Maguire (there's an article that needs work), Pugh was a columnist in the 1990s for C User's Journal and C++ Journal. More recently his 2006 book Interface Oriented Design was reviewed in IEEE Micro. His other 2006 book, Prefactoring, won the Jolt award. His 2010 book, Lean-Agile Acceptance Test-Driven-Development, reviewed in SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, is cited in articles on Google Scholar even though it's a practitioners book. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's because commercial computing people are less notable in general. Are there any secondary RS that talk about his column or the reviews of his books? Citations are not proof of notability. Significant coverage in independent secondary RS is. Mnnlaxer (talk) 03:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Fails WP:AUTHOR; at best, the allegedly award-winning book, if the award is even notable, would be the candidate for an article. Some of the reviews cited are just one-offs of a particular book. Most of the others are blogs or promoting the release of a book. It's also a borderline WP:G11 resume / CV. Otherwise, it's just a guy writing books about an otherwise-notable concept (Agile or Test-driven development), but he doesn't otherwise appear to be a widely-recognized, widely-cited expert, nor did he apparently originate any of the concepts he writes about. --slakr^\ talk / 07:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As StarryGrandma. But Selected Reviews, Selected Conference Talks, Selected Citations and Selected Interviews should go as that what makes it borderline cv. --Averater (talk) 10:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article reads like a resume Heyyouoverthere (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CV of a non-notable authour, fails WP:GNG and [{WP:NAUTHOUR]]. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From Swister Twister: "I searched, News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary). Most of the results are self-authored and not much third-party or overall good coverage." the definition of non-notable. Fails GNG and AUTHOR. Mnnlaxer (talk) 03:44, 30 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.