< 9 July	11 July >

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caring for the World Films[edit]

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

Obviously non-notable company with my searches finding nothing (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) and I could've easily PRODded this but I wanted for weight in case of recreation. SwisterTwister talk 22:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete for now and okay to Redirect to potential article (when written) on founder Debi Lang who, according to The Advocate started the company in 2003. There are a number of external links that might be used as proper citations, but there do not appear to be enough to meet WP:ORG. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking evidence of in depth coverage in reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Siahn Locklee[edit]

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

Actress with no notability to be found-while in 2 notable films neither are major roles and very few tv roles also too boot it seems. Wgolf (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too few appearances to meet WP:ENT. Doesn't appear to be any other grounds for notability. Agtx (talk) 06:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMDB is not a reliable source. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by all means as IMDb is the only link about her at all and that only lists Daria (even browser shows nothing). Considering the low notability and vulnerability to BLP issues, delete. Wiki is not IMDb (IMDb is more accepting of non-notable, at least by Wiki standards, people) and if there's not much at IMDb that often means there's not much for Wiki. SwisterTwister talk 21:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Bardonified[edit]

The result was delete, per WP:NEO. Keegan (talk) 07:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

non-notable word. Antrocent (♫♬) 22:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A11 (Madeup). Given the creators name is Cbardin86, this would seem to fall under A11. Crow^Caw 22:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any sources for the existence of this word outside Wikipedia, so fails WP:V. Altamel (talk) 04:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA article defining a term which cannot be found elsewhere (e.g. Google search). WP:NOTDIC would apply if it was in use, but in the absence of references (either provided or found) WP:NOTMADEUP looks more applicable. I'm adding a CSD A11. AllyD (talk) 06:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Brother's Club[edit]

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

I can't find any coverage on this, maybe even possibly a joke? Either way easily fails WP:GNG Sulfurboy (talk) 22:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means as my searches found absolutely nothing. In any case, maybe this is very low-key show? SwisterTwister talk 22:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unreferenced article full of BLP claims. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think the article is a joke, and Stuartyeates is right on. The "actors" may not exist or otherwise prove notability. Racer-Ωmegα 07:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reede-drum[edit]

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

Ummm.... hoax? Certainly the popularity part.... Vrac (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC) (And maybe archive to: Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia, 7 years 7 months is a pretty good run...)Vrac (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks very much like a hoax to me. No sources. Created by a single-purpose account that has never done anything since. Unfortunately it's been here for so long that lots of other websites have copied it, so Google shows a fair number of results, but I can't find any that seem reliable. The image is actually of a drum from Mindanao and seems to have been copied from here, without the owner's permission according to his Pinterest site, so the image should be deleted as a copyvio too. --Deskford (talk) 00:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:V. I've tried looking for sources on Kyrgyz percussion instruments but nothing comes up under that name, and none of which are frame drums. If the scale is correct, the image clearly doesn't match the description. Unsourced mentions of kangaroo skin, The Clancy Brothers (Irish folk band) and American college curricula also seem out of place. Fuebaey (talk) 05:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No refs provided and none to be found, other than those that originate from this article. Apparent hoax. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Sign of the Seahorse[edit]

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

This article is one paragraph long and has no references. The author of the book, Graeme Base, has a Wikipedia page with a bibliography where this book is listed. Several of his books do link to their own articles and I think those are fine. But this one, "The Sign of the Seahorse," doesn't have enough information to justify a separate article. Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm doing a search but I am finding some coverage here and there, specifically in relation to this book being used as an educational tool. It's enough to where I think that it could squeak by notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It took me a while, but I think I found just enough for this to scrape by. It could probably be expanded to go into more depth about the book's use in education, if anyone is interested in doing that. It looks like it's used in some speech therapy, although most of what I found for that were blog sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. easily meets WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK, article now shows this, thanks to Tokyogirl79. To make it even notabler/more notable(?), I have also added a couple of reviews (yes i know they are kirkus and pw but they are ok to use for notabilty:) and a mention of it being part of academic research. Also, a plea to nominators of afds, pleeeeeezzzz remember WP:CONTN ie. Article content does not determine notability, and WP:BEFORE - D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well... in all fairness, these were a little harder to find than some of the other books out there. It wasn't impossible, but it was sparse going at first. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution of the Free Republic of Liberland[edit]

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

This is an article on a draft 'constitution' for an entirely unrecognised 'micronation' with a population of zero, based on a single primary source - or perhaps more accurately based on the article creator's interpretation of the primary source, which is thus original research. Nothing in the article establishes notability for the topic. A search reveals no coverage in reliable sources beyond passing comments to the effect that the draft exists. Liberland itself may well merit an article, given the coverage it has attracted, but I can see nothing in WP:N that indicates that imaginary 'constitutions' have any inherent notability - so lacking significant third-party coverage, the article should be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage can be found in independent reliable sources to verify or sustain an article. Fails general notability guidelines. Jbh ^Talk 19:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete By WP:ISNOT on various counts. Cheers, The Jolly Bard (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nuke it. I was originally hopeful it would be improved and gain more coverage, but it hasn't. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 21:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking sourcing. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. search brings up lots of news about the micronation and some trivial mentions that there is a constitution but nothing else. Article's references are to the constitution itself and a press release. Also only edits of one month old article creator is this article (except for 1 edit linking from article about micronation) which should have gone through afc, and would not have made it onto mainspace. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. The article is entirely WP:OR and furthermore states that its subject is only a "draft" anyways. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exosomes and Microvesicles (journal)[edit]

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

Article created under old name of journal, which was established in 2013 and has published a handful of articles up to now. Sole claim for notability is that its publisher is on Beall's List. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only is it on Beall's list, it makes patently absurd claims like "EXMV was founded in 2013 by ASEMV under the leadership of editor-in-chief Stephen J. Gould". Stephen J. Gould died in 2002 BTW. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Different Stephen J Gould. Still fails to meet WP:NJOURNALS however.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If we had an article on its publisher we could leave a redirect there, as a warning to people who want to use this journal as a source. However, we don't; the journal doesn't appear to pass WP:NJournals and the publisher doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG (inclusion on Beall's list isn't enough by itself). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No impact factor, no notability. --Shisha-Tom (talk) 10:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: But by the way, User:Headbomb and the rest of you fine WP gentleMEN, I am not an 'it', I am an actual person with actual things to contribute. Did anyone ever consider explaining this to an inexperienced user? Maybe Mr. Randy could have left a real note instead of templating me? I'm sorry I don't meet your highfalutin 98% MALE Wikipedia Editor-Living-In-Mom's-Basement-at-the-age-of-39 standards. I was doing my best. But don't let me upset your Great Work in the GentleMEN's club. Do go back to whatever you guys do in your Wiki-circle. BlackSoxFan2015 (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BlackSoxFan2015: I am not sure what you think gender has to do with this. Typically editors on Wikipedia use several ways to avoid assigning gender to an editor who has not made their preference known, often using things like the singular 'they'. Others will assume an editor is male unless they say otherwise because a) most are male and b) many females do not wish to identify as such. Whichever, throwing abusive accusations and insults is not the way to participate in the community. I believe this was also mentioned to you on Jimbo's talk page. I am sorry you had a rough introduction to Wikipedia. If you have questions or need help please feel free to ask on my talk page. Whatever you decide though please remember that here we do not attack other editors ad you did above. I would strongly suggest you ~~strike~~ the bulk of your comment above by using <s>text to strike out</s>. Thank you for your understanding and again, I am sorry you had a rough introduction to Wikipedia. Jbh ^Talk 02:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BlackSoxFan2015: I also am unsure what gender has to do with anything, or where anyone assumed anything about anyone's gender (as if that would even be relevant in the first place). The first "it" in "Not only is it on Beall's list, it makes patently absurd claims like..." clearly refers to E&M being on Beall's list, while the second "it" clearly refers to the article making "absurd claims", which is something I have clearly retracted, since the article mean to refers to a different Stephen J. Gould than the one linked to. There are many issues related to the gender gap on Wikipedia, but a deletion debate concerning a non-notable journal isn't amongst them. I suggest you focus on the arguments, otherwise you'll end up highfaluting yourself into a corner. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if you're interested in contributing to academic journal articles on Wikipedia, see Our list of missing journals that are likely notable and our guide on writing journal articles. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft:InTech and expand to describe more publications about the company, e.g. [1] (based on [2]), until you have enough data to work with. The journal may not be independently notable at this time but the company may be. Meanwhile, please be careful about alleging ad hominem motives - I have seen long-term and extremely productive editors banned over just a few rants tamer than the one above. That may not be fair, may not be considerate of the obstacles women and other minorities face, but I'm telling you how it is here. Don't make yourself an easy target - don't go after someone unless you have a specific comment to cite as evidence and you read it carefully and cite it directly (to the WP:diff) with a clear notion of what you hope to accomplish administratively. Wnt (talk) 10:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The company's claim to notability rest on one post on Retraction Watch. The other source is just a listing in a table. It is also included in Beall's list, but that too is only a listing. That really is not enough to base an article upon and at this point I see no notability for this fake/predatory publisher either. --Randykitty (talk) 10:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I realize the cites I just gave aren't quite enough to make the company notable, and perhaps not even with the cite in the present article thrown in. Had I thought there was enough to support notability, I'd have said "move to InTech." However, there's more about the company out there and I think enough could be found to make it notable. If not, then kick the whole little blurb up a level further (and if you have that few sources it will be little) to predatory publisher or something. Just like with a camera, you have to broaden your aperture until you get enough light to see by. Wnt (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the lack of secondary sources establishing notability. Gamaliel (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources to verify notability. Fails GNG and NJOURNAL. I am also very concerned that none of the libraries of any of the editors or editorial board index or have the journal. I checked Worldcat and only 26 libraries have the journal, almost all in Germany. I also checked at Johns Hopkins' (where Stephen Gould is a Professor) Welch Library. This is of concern because it is on Beall's List and it claims such a notable editorial board while having no coverage and no significant presence in University or Medical School Libraries Jbh ^Talk 15:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Bee[edit]

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

Internet marketing firm which seems to fail notability requirements for companies. The sources are primary with the exception of two mentions in local newspapers. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. bonadea contributions talk 19:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence found from searches on Google, Highbeam, Questia or Guardian that this firm has attained notability. AllyD (talk) 06:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately delete for now as the name and information is not easy to find good sources but for a recently founded company in 2013, the best I found were some mentions. SwisterTwister talk 21:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nadim Mir[edit]

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

Despite some basic coverage, fails WP:BIO. Previously speedied as A7 §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Not notable, no inline citations, and fails WP:BIO.--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Per nom, can't find much notability. Wgolf (talk) 02:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails notability guideline. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 02:33, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Per nom. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 06:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in depth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No good sources (as also shown by my searches) not even the slightest (no IMDb) and although there's a systemic bias sometimes, it seems clear there's no notability yet. SwisterTwister talk 21:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There's a general disagreement as to the actual existing amount of coverage and whether it is enough to establish notability under any of the many guidelines cited. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Angelina Rodriguez[edit]

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

As a BLP, it is not notable per WP:CRIME. If it were to be moved to an article about the event, it is not notable for many reasons per WP:N(E). 217IP (talk) 02:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion withdrawnSmokeyJoe (talk) 14:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)~~Delete per nom.~~[reply]

As a BLP, even for incarcerated persons, the standard for inclusion needs to be much higher than WP:BIO. There are many sources for this article, but on examination, they are a series of newspaper reports, fact without commentary, and therefore squarely classifiable as primary sources, and in the end I find this article is not supported by any reliable and reputable secondary sources. In this analysis of reliable and reputable secondary sources, I exclude television shows, am open to popular books, and am particularly looking for any level of academic/scholarly commentary. I find nothing, and find this finding consistent with the nominators observation that the event (Wikipedia:Notability (events) for which this is a WP:BIO1E, is not notable. A reading of Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Criminal_acts and Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Crime_victims_and_perpetrators clearly points to this article not being appropriate content.

If this article were appropriate, then it would be that it is OK for editors to routinely scour newspapers for content to build articles on all notorious criminals and unfortunate victims. I think Wikipedia chooses not to do this because it is thoroughly a misuse of primary sources, forbidden a core content policy WP:NOR, and for good reasons such as Wikipedia wanting to avoid editor biases and and being a forum for any form of advocacy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable enough to have newspaper articles, which means someone might want to look it up. As books are written we can add applicable info to the article. But for now it's fine. Where is the harm? Is see only an upside in keeping it, and no downside. The downside to deleting it is someone has to start from scratch as more material becomes available. --В²C ☎ 19:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Where's the harm?" is not considered a valid argument for having an article on Wikipedia. Otherwise all of the Earth's billions of people could have articles. All except one of the newspaper articles cited in the article are limited to the state where the event occurred and are therefore not notable, see WP:GEOSCOPE. Additionally, the cited articles do not pass the WP:DEPTH, WP:PERSISTENCE, or WP:DIVERSE test either. There are many other tests of notability it fails to meet. The article can be deleted and kept as a draft, if you want. Considering the subject of the article is on death row, it is unlikely there is anything she will do that is notable enough to warrant an article. 217IP (talk) 20:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a random person picked out of billions. It's a person written about in multiple newspapers. Here's the relevant standard, I think: if a topic is covered in reliable sources, then it's sufficiently notable to be in WP. From a reader's point of view, WP is a very convenient place to gather the essence of what is said in reliable sources about any given topic. If there's not much, then there's not much of an article. That's okay. If there is nothing in reliable sources, then, and only then, should there be no article. --В²C ☎ 20:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it is your desire for Wikipedia to be more inclusive of what it considers notable, but the guidelines as they exist now clearly do not allow an article with this level of notability. If you think this article passes a test for notability, please refer to the exact guideline that you think would allow it. Otherwise, you and anyone else are welcome to participate in setting guidelines and policies if you disagree with them: WP:PGLIFE. 217IP (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For now I'll rely on improving the encyclopedia per WP:IAR, a pillar, thank you very much. Because WP with this article is certainly an improvement over WP without this article. --В²C ☎ 20:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is coverage, interesting story, yes, but I think the guideline for WP:BLP1E applies. Here is the ruling:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met: If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley, Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented. The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.
— Wikipedia rule WP:BLP1E.(retrieved June 25 2015) (boldface by tws)

And my take is that the persistence of coverage is not that great.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 12:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it appears notable and more sources may be able to be added to this article. CDRL102 (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well detailed, even when the person's profile is very low as well as the trial. Of course, sources are left to be desired. BLP1E is used for deletion argument, but this person is going to be executed, making the article worth keeping. George Ho (talk) 04:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the criteria for notability is being executed (which it isn't), it has not happened yet and this falls under WP:TOOSOON. 217IP (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - user George Ho is right. Upcoming execution is enough to justify inclusion on the already available info.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not news, and just because newspaper articles have covered a crime does not make it notable. I have to second the analysis of the articles given above.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just because newspaper articles have covered a crime doesnt make it notable? that is just a really weird statement. ofcourse coverage makes it notable, especially when it is as well an upcoming execution which will generate even more coverage. This is an obvious Keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Being an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, Wikipedia needs to be built upon secondary sources covering the subject in depth. There is no depth to this story, and a long train of factual reports, aka primary sources, don't substitute for secondary source coverage. If you think what you write, you need to read WP:PSTS, and the precise words of the WP:GNG. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While I advocate deletion per WP:BLP1E, I would simply point out that the sources currently in the article are WP:SECONDARY in my view, such as the Los Angeles Times and such.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers are not simply and automatically secondary. A secondary source refers to primary sources and adds commentary, analysis or some intellectual transformation of the information. None of the sources for this subject do that. They just report the basic facts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you done? LA Times has made articles on this case. Sources establishes notability in this case. We can micro-analyse anything to make it look in a certain way, but sources and overall notability does not lie.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK Babba. I was going to point you to Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources and explain to you that unless the newspaper article communicates author opinion, minimally some authors adjectives applied to the case, the perpetrator or the crime, then the source is a primary source and does not count towards notability. I started going through the references again, word by word, to be sure, but actually, I take it back, the references, including the first ("It was a sensational crime, the stuff of pulp fiction"), do include obvious author commentary. My apologies. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete does not meet WP:PERP. in addition being on death row does not guarantee notability. LibStar (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. She is not a notable PERP, nor is Wikipedia a newspaper. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the fact she's had a few articles in LA Times as well as the fact she's getting executed, Sources establish notability. –Davey2010^Talk 01:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a number of reliable sources have published a series of articles on her. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - simply because not only with news coverage, but she was covered by crime TV shows which is additional coverage in itself and is noteworthy and notable. I know this could be better but if we question this one, we'll have to question several other related articles. SwisterTwister talk 17:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedurally Keep - nominated by a sockpuppet evading their block and no other users have proposed deletion (non-admin closure). RichardOSmith (talk) 09:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vectra Networks Inc.[edit]

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

Not notable. references are websites Darthvaderskywalker2011 (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe Weizenbaum[edit]

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

~~Speedy~~ Delete: blatantly non-notable in any respect, including as an actress. Quis separabit? 13:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Film credits for Missing in America, 12 and Holding and Memoirs of a Geisha are sufficient to meet the criteria for WP:NACTOR. This is WP:AfD, not WP:SPEEDY, by the way, and the only criterion you could have used is WP:A7 which couldn't possibly apply to anyone with four film credits. You could argue that Weizenbaum's roles were too minor to count, but a brief perusal of film reviews for the above shows her name mentioned prominently in many of them, indicating that critics in major media took notice of this actor and said so. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is not a speedy delete case; I know the tag well. I just worded it that way to indicate my belief that this was a clear cut case. I see that not everyone agrees. Quis separabit? 00:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Bratland. Credits in one major film and two seemingly well-regarded indies, plus Best Actress at the Monaco International Film Festival,[3] are enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I suppose simply with this although this is also vulnerable to BLP issues of someone with only a few (albeit notable) roles and there's not much to add to the article given the low amount of good sources here, here, here, here and here. I would've actually said redirect elsewhere (to one article) if it wasn't for the several movies. SwisterTwister talk 17:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Non-human electoral candidates. This is also a merge - recommend a trimmed version of this article be added to the target page, of course with the proper attribution. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 09:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Limberbutt McCubbins[edit]

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

The cat is cute, but ultimately this fails WP:1E. I realize that this is about a cat and not a person, but because the cat is doing person-like things, I think the notability standard is about the same. Agtx (talk) 17:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, including ones external to the United States (Malaysian Digest). His candidacy has been endorsed by a media organization (Jezebel, but still...). He may have been registered with the FEC first as a joke, but it is attracting enough attention to make it a notable joke. It's also not a single event as they are running with it, selling t-shirts and mugs with the "Limberbutt 2016" logo and have set up active Facebook and Twitter accounts. They are using this event to push for election reform, raise money for animal shelters, and bring attention to serious issues.[4] This is not the first non human candidate, some of whom have even won their elections. I believe this passes notability guidelines and should be kept. In the alternative, it should be merged to Non-human electoral candidates. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I should add that I have no problem with a merge/redirect solution. Agtx (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to Non-human electoral candidates for the time being, Per WP:1E & WP:RECENTISM. Article can be re-created if significant RS coverage persists.--JayJasper (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect, good idea JayJasper. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect to Non-human electoral candidates - Not much notability atm but seems better to merge & redirect instead of just deleting, No objections to recreation if anything else crops up notability-wise. –Davey2010^Talk 21:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is more coverage now, and it is not all just a joke; there is a serious aspect in this expressed in coverage by the Huffington Post and ABC News. I personally find it only partly amusing: there are serious candidates getting drowned out, i.e. candidates who have declared themselves in the running despite having no chance to win, but having a serious point they're trying to get out (e.g. Michael Steinberg, with a legitimate point about Social Security funding, to be covered soon at Michael Steinberg (lawyer) (draft in progress)). I have added to the article. --do ncr am 16:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Coverage has continued. The article grew significantly by this diff from the version seen by nominator and all above !voters. It now includes coverage from Scotland and from more U.S. sources as well as from already-mentioned Malaysia. It doesn't make sense to me to delete an article when there is this much coverage and when coverage is increasing and the article is growing. The article could be redirected after a future discussion, if not all persons are satisfied by some later date, but it doesn't make sense to truncate the development abruptly now. Also if this much had been developed within the suggested merger target article, it would be time already to split it out to a separate article, because the legitimate material is more than fits comfortably there. --do ncr am 18:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The edits in the diff you point out don't reflect any additional coverage. Rather, they just reflect the addition of large block quotes from the same articles (or extremely similar articles from other sources) that were cited previously, which are probably not necessary here. I don't think that prevents us from entertaining a merge/redirect solution. Agtx (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Non-human electoral candidates. Right now, it's too soon to determine whether this falls into the category of WP:BLP1E or whether the subject is truly notable in its own right. As others have said, the article can be restored if continued coverage establish it to be the latter.--2600:1003:B863:36F1:0:4A:D227:5A01 (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)— 2600:1003:B863:36F1:0:4A:D227:5A01 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Merge and Redirect per above, and per comments of User:Vrivasfl at Talk:Limberbutt McCubbins#Proposed Deletion. I agree with the others who say let's give it time and see if it develops into more than just a one-off news story. The coverage received so far make the cat noteworthy enough to be included in the Non-human electoral candidates articles, but only time will tell if the coverage will persist beyond colorful-news-story-of-the-week status.--NextUSprez (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's also been interviewed for a TV show in Japan, and has a Politifact page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.115.155 (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC) — 96.28.115.155 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Here is the politifact page: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/14/limberbutt-mccubbins/can-a-cat-run-for-president/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinweiss (talk • contribs) 23:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Smart (mastering engineer)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet the requirements of WP:BIO as there are seemingly no sources providing in-depth coverage of the subject. Notability cannot be inherited from being the mastering engineer on notable records. SmartSE (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Creative folks like these are valuable to the music industry and often have impressive resumes, but ultimately there is very little material about them that would help them meet our inclusion guidelines. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. With some professions, you just don't get much, if any, media notice. After quickly skimming Category:Australian audio engineers, Andrew Edgson, Ben Feggans, Ashley Klose, Richard Lush, James Nowiczewski, Paul Stefanidis and Leon Zervos appear to be in the same (leaking) boat. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely non-notable, fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence this article meets our inclusion criteria, sorry. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a staff directory for Studio 301. Promo piece for non notable mastering engineer. Lacks independent coverage about him in reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks "significant coverage" so doesn't meet WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pauliana[edit]

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

Article seems to be about an unremarkable piece of land in South Africa. no references or assertion of notability. Fitnr 16:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete trying to find sources is not helped by the vague name, in their absence it has to be assumed to be not notable.Pincrete (talk) 16:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing for this specifically and instead for "actio pauliana". SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Reynolds (academic)[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:ACADEMIC. She is a Ph. D holder (not a professor) like any common university teacher. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. This source refers to her as 'Dean of School' however, is this a user posted site? Other sources on University site confirm 'Dean of School' (ie head of Dept.). This doesn't seem to meet WP:ACADEMIC and many other claims are unsourced.Pincrete (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a user posted site. I have come across her a couple of times on national level committees and realised that with the current issues about tolerance and diversity in the world that the entry might be notable because of the long history of diversity work in the UK that it reveals. There relevance of the dean of education role, coupled with the Local authority engagement shows the different contexts in England in which these ideas are accepted. The background on diversity would be known on appointment as any appointing board, like me, can search the web to get background on people. I am interested in the issues and the history of development of ideas and find in an internet connected world, if the information is not easily finable on the on the internet then it might as well not exist. A recent case in the UK press giving an example of this was a new feminist coming up with the idea of women not changing their names on marriage which anyone with a long memory knows was a big issue in England in the 1970s where women won the right to use the term MS rather than Mrs or Miss which denote belonging or not to a man. Marilyn Leask (talk) 11:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have just seen someone said that 'Dean of School' is head of department - it definitely is not. A university of approx 20,000 students often will have just 4 deans across the major disciplines e.g. sciences, medicine, arts and education. It is an extremely influential role. The Dean will have heads of department reporting to them and in turn will report to the Vice Chancellor. I was a dean and I know the protocols for appointment and accountabilityMarilyn Leask (talk) 11:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Your comment above suggest that you are Kate Reynolds. If you claim not to be Kate but since you know Kate, kindly tell her to wait until (1) her research made a significant impact in her scholarly discipline (2) she received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level (3) she becomes an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) (4) her academic work made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions (5) she holds or a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (6) she held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society. (7) she made substantial impact outside academia in her academic capacity. (8) she becomes the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in her subject area. Then will someone with no WP:COI who knows how to write an encyclopedic article thinks she is notable and write about her here. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 01:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicology, Marilyn Leask is not Kate Reynolds, nor even Kate Reynolds (academic), she's Marilyn Leask, a fact that's been pretty well aired and exhausted on her talk page. Bazj (talk) 08:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, her comments and contributions to the article made me to think that she is Kate Reynolds (academic). Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the above is correct. The web site for this university shows that there are only 6 Schools. Schools are more like what used to be called Faculties. There may be details about the structure of the School, but I could not find it. University web pages these days are all about selling the place to prospective students and not about giving solid information. However, this is not a reason on its own to keep this article, but it refutes the argument higher up. I think it quite likely that this academic is notable, but it needs more work, ~~so a weak keep for now~~. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the WP:ACADEMIC criteria do you think she met? I think Kate Reynolds is trying to convince us here that she (dean) is notable and should be a subject of an encyclopedia. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 01:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If being a Dean of a faculty satisfied WP:ACADEMIC#5, even when the person is not a "Distinguished Professor", my Nephew and all of my friends, who are not professors would have been a subject of a Wikipedia article long time ago. She is not in anyway close to satisfying WP:ACADEMIC#5. The criterion stipulated that an academic may be considered notable if "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon)". A "named chair" means "endowed professorships". We can't in anyway consider the "appointment of a Dean" a "Distinguished Professor" appointment or a "named chair (endowed professorships) appointment" since it doesn't satisfy the requirement that it should be held by a professor. If the position could be held by ordinary academic staff with B.sc, M.sc, M.phill and Ph.D degree then its not a "named chair appointment (endowed professorships appointment) or "Distinguished Professor" appointment" which means that Criteria 5 is never met. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 01:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your case is entirely based on WP:ACADEMIC, but some academics can meet the general notability guidelines without meeting WP:ACADEMIC. This might be the case for an academic who has published books that are more widely read than most academic publications, or an academic who has influenced government, or an educationalist who has had a significant influence on education planning at a national or local level. In other words an academic who has been widely noticed in reliable sources. The last point may be the case here. We do not yet know, and I am a long way from Bath. Heads of Faculties or Schools in UK universities are often very well known. They can for example be appointed as dean and to a named chair. Let us see if editors can find some more sources. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She is not in anyway close to passing our primary notability criteria and that is why I emphasized on WP:ACADEMIC which she obviously fails as well. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From the article as it is written of course you are right, but you did not appear to look hard for material. Voceditenore below has now done so, so I change my opinion to delete.

Delete The subject fails both the general notability criteria and the alternative criteria at WP:ACADEMIC. Quite comprehensively in my view. I have both examined the references provided and done a fairly thorough search myself for material which might satisfy these criteria, including Google Scholar. I have found none. Neither she nor her work is discussed in the general press (General notability criteria), in fact not at all. The only entry for her in WorldCat is her PhD thesis. As far as I can see, she has no single-authored books. Ditto, coverage in the specialist literature (WP:ACADEMIC criteria). All academics who do their job properly carry out research projects (and sometimes lead them), write articles, sit on committees, occasionally give advice to public bodies, occasionally do work for consultancy firms, attend conferences and chair sessions, and sit on editorial boards of journals, etc. Those are normal aspects of that job, shared by literally thousands of middle-rank academics. They are not marks of distinction or notability per se. The current references (and I can find nothing better) are:

A university press release announcing her appointment. The dean of a school/faculty in a second tier UK university with 7000 students in total divided into 6 "schools", comes nowhere near passing WP:ACADEMIC. It is an administrative post, and in these types of British universities, not given in recognition of superior scholarship. It's in recognition of being potentially a good administrator. I know this because I worked for years as a visiting lecturer in two similar institutions in the UK. Nor is it notable per se to hold a post like hers. The press release briefly outlines her CV, putting a positive spin on it as you would expect from a press release, but even that lists the standard sorts of qualifications you would expect for a job like that.
A link to Bath Spa Education school page with two sentences listing her name and position and describing her as "Project Lead for 'Diversity in Teacher Education'"
A generic link to the website of the UK Anti-racist Alliance. She is mentioned nowhere on the site, despite being described in the article here as "the founder". I can find no evidence anywhere that she is the founder or that this UK organization is particularly notable.
A paper authored by Reynolds herself, which according to Google Scholar has only 5 citations.
A 2010 forum posting wherein someone has done some research on a consulting company (Appleyards) via their website (now defunct) and has listed her name as one of their "Key personnel"

The above analysis is based on today's version of the article. Voceditenore (talk) 14:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note Since my comment yesterday I have updated reference 4. to make it clear that this is an article by the subject, not about her, and have added a link to the article which is available online. I have also added a ((failed verification)) to that reference. In no way does an article written by the subject herself in 1991, 8 years before obtaining her PhD, support the claim which precedes it:

"She is an equalities specialist contributing to national policies through advisory roles spanning a range of central government, local government, and business networks with detailed knowledge and understanding of equalities policy and legislation across the education sector.".

Voceditenore (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per voceditenore.4meter4 (talk) 15:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No credible claim of notability, article is a recitation of her positions (none notable per se), and reliable sources are absent. Agricola44 (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Dean of school is not a high-enough level administrative posting for WP:PROF, none of the other claims in the article look significant enough for notability, and we also have no other evidence of passing any of the WP:PROF criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by JzG (talk · contribs) per CSD G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Debtconsolidation.com[edit]

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

This seems to be a non-notable website that hasn't received any in-depth coverage in reliable sources. The only coverage is brief mentions relating infographics they've produced and half the sources are authored by the website's founder. SmartSE (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating these articles, one about the founder of the website and another website he founded of which I am unable to find any significant coverage of either. SmartSE (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of the 3 have any evidence of notability, All fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 01:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons cited by User:Davey2010--FeralOink (talk) 09:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose delete and draft/userfy if wished as the best my searches found were this, this and this (one mention, interesting it's from 2007 though) along with this being for something else. Summarily, the company is not solidly notable for Wiki yet. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all As above, spam about non-notable CEO and his companies. They fail WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted WP:A7. Just Chilling (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Macauley Callard[edit]

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

Doesn't technically meet A7, but no secondary source coverage or other indications of notability. Agtx (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. I do think it meets A7 for speedy delete, as I don't believe just been a model or a background guy on movies is a reasonable claim of notability.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7 as there is no importance claimed, Delete as a BLP PROD because there are no sources, or delete as a failure to establish notability - take your pick. Mr Potto (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete:As per proposer and Mr Potto + BLP without any references.Pincrete (talk) 16:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A purely WP:SELFPROMOTION article. MarnetteD|Talk 19:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - A7 - Tagged as such as this is obvious SELFPROMOTION, and there's the fact he fails NACTOR & GNG. And nothing of value was lost. –Davey2010^Talk 21:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NexusLab[edit]

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

Non-notable. Fails to meet Wikipedia notability standards. When searching Google for articles about this company, make sure you search for "nexuslab" in quotes or else you'll get a lot of articles about the cell phone. CerealKillerYum (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and draft of course as there's not much for Wiki at this time. It's worth noting both non-quotes and more detailed don't make difference here and here so to summarize my searches found absolutely nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 22:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking refs with significant coverage. Refs in article are incidental mentions in long lists of companies. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 14:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Zahm[edit]

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

Clearly non-notable subject and User:Jazahm likely the subject himself. DeleteAllTheThings (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are a few sources, but I'm not seeing enough to satisfy WP:BIO or WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Makes no claim of notability that would satisfy WP:NPOL (which does not confer an automatic presumption of notability on backroom consultants), and isn't sourced to nearly enough reliable source coverage to get him over WP:GNG instead — of the four sources here, #2 and #3 both just passingly namecheck his basic existence rather than providing any substantive coverage of him, and #4 is an invalid WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. So #1 is the only one that counts for squat, but it still provides barely more than a blurb's worth of information about him personally — so it is not substantive enough to carry him over GNG all by itself. As usual, Wikipedia is not a place where anybody gains an entitlement to keep an article just because they exist, if the sourcing and substance just aren't there. No prejudice against recreation in the future if he accomplishes something that actually satisfies a Wikipedia inclusion rule, but absolutely nothing written or sourced here does so as things stand right now. Bearcat (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as author-requested — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Germany shooting[edit]

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

clearly WP:NOTNEWS. spike in coverage because it happened in last 24 hours. Person killing 2 people would not have long term notability. Pure speculation this is terrorism. LibStar (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not terrorism. Suspect was local and apparently had mental issues[5] —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as G4. I'm also salting this to prevent a second attempt at recreation in the future. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gaffers' Row[edit]

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

I can't find sources for this book that support its notability. Mikeblas (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was previously deleted back in 2008 via AfD and re-created in 2011 by the same editor. I'm going to G4 this since not a thing has changed since then. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ranjana alphabet. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nepalese calligraphy[edit]

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

There are no sources here. The article in Persian has two references: one is a dead external link and the other is this article in the English Wikipedia. Dhoj Besra (talk) 14:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable topic about ancient calligraphy system. Here is an archive of the dead source [6]. I would imagine there are plenty of Nepalese sources. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wholly redundant to Ranjana alphabet. Johnbod (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ranjana alphabet; this article is redundant like Johnbod says. Reyk _YO! 08:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect rather than delete, as this is may be a common search term. Bearian (talk) 10:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hawai'i Championship Wrestling[edit]

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

No reliable sources Sismarinho (talk) 20:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Reference 1 - Page Not Found. References 2 & 7 are separate home pages with no reference to subject. References 3 - 6 are the same - a list of domain names for sale. No reliable sources are provided to support notability.--Rpclod (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources to really indicate notability, short lived federation MPJ -US 20:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a notable federation and was also short lived. TheGRVOfLightning (talk) 23:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could a redirect to Don Muraco#Retirement work due to him being s cofounder.--67.68.29.1 (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Joel Spira (businessman). The two !keep voters confuse "importance" with "notability", and one of them somewhat agrees that a redirect would suffice. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 15:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lutron Electronics Company[edit]

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

Not an obviously notable company, a solid, competent manufacturer of dimmer switches. That's not enough for an encyclopaedia article of interest to the world at large. There are some passing mentions in sources, but not really enough sustained coverage. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not really my field (Electronics is, US practice and company history isn't). However Lutron and Joel Spira clearly have a good claim of innovation for low-cost domestic light dimmers. Domestic lights didn't dim before Lutron, afterwards they did. I can't claim that we have to have two articles here, but it's enough of an innovation to claim that Lutron is notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - even the Apple Watch has a Lutron app. This is the major manufacturer in light dimmers. A little WP:BEFORE would have been useful here. At worst, this can be combined with the founder's Wikipedia article with appropriate redirects. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I did do some WP:BEFORE (hence the "there are some passing mentions in sources....") but a redirect would be a good compromise. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Joel Spira as it seems it got the majority of attention through him with my searches here, here (simply business listings) and here (not much good either) and here. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 27 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) 01:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kazakhstan President Cup (football)[edit]

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

I don't believe this organization meets the notability criteria of WP:FOOTBALL. Article contains no citations to help ascertain this. KDS4444^Talk 09:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's not an organization but an annual international tournament that receives sufficient coverage[7]. Current edition includes teams from seven former USSR republics and Spain, who also won last year. I'll try to clean it up. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - additionally this is a brand new article and the creator continues to add more information. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As far as I am aware, WP:FOOTBALL have no notability criteria that would relate to a tournament like this (there is nothing listed here). Number 5 7 15:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would think regularly GNG applies to sporting events. It has lots of coverage in Russian of course, but Spanish as well - [8]. 5,000+ hits and this is Spain's second year participating. So I think it's pretty safe. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Am I correct in understanding that this is a children's tournament, and that no one over the age of 17 is allowed to play? This makes it sound like a football summer camp for kids. KDS4444^Talk 17:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KDS4444: No, it's not a "children's tournament" but an U-17 international. U-17 is a well-covered age division in international sports as this is the next generation - see FIFA U-17 World Cup and entire category: Category:Under-17 association football —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As noted above, seems to meet GNG in non-English sources. Needs expanding by a native speaker. Fenix down (talk) 07:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, coverage not sufficient for GNG as far as I'm concerned, as it is not "significant" about the competition itself. Giant Snowman 11:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see the link I posted? There are about 10,000 news stories about it. How is coverage insufficient? —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Мандичка and passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sources provided by the keep !voters, without rebuttal, show this list documents a meaningful grouping. postdlf (talk) 03:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of childhood diseases and disorders[edit]

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

This is an impossibly large scope that has been unsourced and will never be near finished, not to mention that the vast majority also apply to adults. An article about childhood diseases is perfectly justified but a full list is not. Kharkiv07 (T) 18:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Kharkiv07 (T) 18:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - most of these are diseases affecting adults (ie Lyme disease), or some of these are just things people are born with (ie Down syndrome) but are not "childhood" diseases —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper above.--ABCDEFAD _✉ 22:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since this article was created in 2010, with little effort to improve its quality, it is probably out-of-date. It does not follow the guidelines for using reliable medical sources-it has none. This could be a good topic, relevant and useful if the information was correct. I am drafting an article on Neonatal infections, for example, which would be a subset of this article if it were any good.

Bfpage |leave a message 10:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The size of the list is unimportant - see WP:NOTPAPER. The topic is quite notable as there are entire books with titles such as:

Diseases and Disorders in Infancy and Early Childhood
Childhood Diseases and Disorders Sourcebook
Chronic Complex Diseases of Childhood
Manual of Childhood Infections
Common Childhood Diseases
Assessment of Childhood Disorders
Practical Paediatrics

The topic therefore passes WP:LISTN and the rest is a matter of ordinary editing not deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Andrew D. The National Health Service [9] and the Centers for Disease Control,[10] among others, recognize childhood diseases. The list just needs some cleanup (e.g. AIDS doesn't qualify). Clarityfiend (talk) 02:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment note that the equivalent, Lists of diseases, is a list of lists of specific kinds of diseases. Kharkiv07 (T) 03:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the option of redirecting it to Lists of diseases, which may make the most sense. Kharkiv07 (T) 15:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of diseases is a list of lists and so that does not make sense. Andrew D. (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a list of diseases that humans (including human children) get: AIDS, anemia, asthma, cancer, fever, pneumonia, tuberculosis and more. I find it a bit offensive that Down syndrome is on the list as there are many adults living with Downs: this is not a death sentence. Children have special needs and thus we have paediatrics. Instead of a list why not an article about childhood health. Alec Station (talk) 09:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have nothing strongly against the article but I can't help thinking that a category might be better and more maintainable. Also, fever is a symptom, not a disease. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - once notable, always notable. I am young enough to be technologically sophisticated, yet old enough that the MMR vaccine didn't exist when I was a child. "Childhood disease" was a well-used phrase in both medicine and popular culture for certain types of illnesses that overwhelmingly, or normatively, struck American and European people under the age of 16. Perhaps this needs to be started from scratch, although I don't think it's that bad. Plenty of good sources could be found easily online, or just ask your grandparents about possible sources. Userfying it, followed by a re-redirect to Childhood disease might work. Bearian (talk) 11:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: Do you agree that an article for the term and the basics of childhood diseases is better than a list of diseases? Kharkiv07 (T) 23:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kharkiv07: Yes. Bearian (talk) 00:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isaiah Anderson[edit]

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

fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ without any independent sources, we're looking at a fail to meet WP:BLP. If they were added to the article I would revisit.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A google search turns up a fair amount of coverage. I've added a handful of cites to the article so that it can be judged on its merits and not summarily deleted as a BLP. Cbl62 (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Not the clearest case of WP:GNG, but there are instances of significant coverage in multiple, reliable and independent sources. Coverage includes The Oklahoman, the largest daily newspaper in the State of Oklahoma, Stillwater News-Press, a local newspaper in the city where OSU plays, the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, the Associated Press, and ESPN.com. The ESPN and Lubbock Avalanche-Journal articles are game coverage but devote substantial space to Anderson and his accomplishments (the headline even pertains to him). Cbl62 (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment we can watch this one close. If someone is particularly enthusiastic about the topic, maybe it can be saved or userfied and brought back from the dead. My opinion is very pliable on this one.
Comment This article was pointed out to me on my talk page. It was created by a serial copyright infringer, unfortunately, and the bulk of it was taken with little modification from one of its sources. That material has had to be truncated. I have no opinion on its retention, but wanted to explain the change. See the talk page for more information. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Keep I see that the article has improved, a few more sources have been added. Probably borderline passing WP:GNG at this point, but I've always leaned close to the border.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This does not meet WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:NCOLLATH. The subject received some coverage as most Div 1 college football players do, but nothing more than average. --Rpclod (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. If you aren't happy with this decision, please discussion it on the article talk page and renominate if deemed necessary. Missvain (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan James Publishing[edit]

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

Non-notable publisher, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure: Morgan James Publishing is a past client. I am not currently receiving compensation from them, nor do I expect to for my involvement in their page at this time.

KEEP (not delete) because this company is cited hundreds (maybe thousands) of times in Wikipedia as they are the publisher of many books by notable authors. Seems to me that this should carry some weight. en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=50&profile=default&search="morgan+james+publishing" Most of these citations occurred prior to MJP having a Wikipedia page, thus those pages do not link to it.TriJenn (talk) 16:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've cited exactly 0 Wikipedia policies. Why do they pass either WP:GNG or WP:CORP? Joseph2302 (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MJP has been written about extensively in Publisher's Weekly, the industry publication which covers publishers and books. This is the go-to source for this industry. There are many articles in PW about MJP.TriJenn (talk) 18:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment illustrates one or more of the classic "arguments not to make at AfD". For the "many articles in PW" to be persuasive, you need to show why the coverage is notable, not just "xyz corp published this book". Volume≠notability as described in WP:BIGNUMBER. Also, even if the works they published were themselves notable, notability is not inherited. — Brianhe (talk) 21:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable vanity press. Non-notable per my comments above. Vanity press per consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 145. — Brianhe (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep I agree that this is a vanity press, but looking at it from the view of WP:CORP it has a certain notability. Being on the list of "fast-growing independent publishers" in Publisher's Weekly two years in a row is the kind of thing that we look for in articles about companies. The other articles are about business moves, which are typical of corporations. I'm not greatly impressed by the "Best Seller Lists" since we know that those can be manipulated, especially in the specific lists like "Advice, etc. paperback" which is what these are. However, one reference says that their best best-seller sold 60K copies, which is probably a fair amount. How much credit the vanity press should get for this is a mystery to me, which is why I'm pretty much discounting that. I do think that the article should say "vanity press", and I will add that although I suspect it will get reverted. Having other eyes on it for the next while will be helpful. LaMona (talk) 01:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only substantial coverage of the company I can find is in Publishing Weekly but as a specialist industry publication, I don't consider coverage in there to be sufficient to demonstrate notability per WP:CORP. I've searched in Factiva to see if there has been any coverage in more mainstream sources but haven't been able to find anything but this but it's not possible to find what the original allegations were that lead to that piece. SmartSE (talk) 11:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The publisher of bultiple NYT best-sellers is a notable publisher in every sense of the word. This is afield where direct references in ourt usual sense are quite hard to find, and we're justified in using common sense. DGG ( talk ) 03:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per DGG, and because it's better for the encyclopedia (and its users) to provide verifiable information about this prolific, and occasionally controversial ([11]) "subsidy" publisher. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searching online does not show coverage by authoritative sources and I question notability.--Rpclod (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Basic and Clinical Pharmacy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was deleted after PROD in 2013 and recreated today. I have done a huge amount of cleanup, the original version (with all 19 "references" and "further reading") is here. All references are just library catalog entries or even have nothing to do with the journal (such as "general references" to books that were published decades before this journal was established). Not a single independent reference that actually says something about this journal itself. Not indexed in any selective databases, not even Scopus. The journal still does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals, hence: delete. (Note: previous AfD was closed "no consensus" for lack of participation). Randykitty (talk) 09:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This journal is now five years old and it didn´t manage to get an impact factor by ISI Web of Science. Therefore it should be deleted. --Shisha-Tom (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete barring the discovery of additional sources that would establish notability via WP:GNG. I didn't find anything appropriate. --j⚛e decker ^talk 14:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm trying to find this in Ulrichsweb and so far I can't locate it, which isn't really a good sign considering it's been out for about 5 years. I tried searching by the publisher's name and only brought up one title, which wasn't this one - also not a good sign. I'll try searching a little more. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Above arguments are convincing and fails the notability threshold of being included in databases.68.148.186.93 (talk) 22:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gala Stakes[edit]

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

Article includes no indication of subject's notability. KDS4444^Talk 19:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perfectly good stub article. Plenty of sources available. Lots of room for development obviously, but not the sort of thing that deserved an AFD tag dropped on it an hour after it was created. Tigerboy1966 13:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References to results in Racing Post and British Horseracing Authority major races list have been added which should establish notability. --Bcp67 (talk) 08:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Listed stakes of adequate notability. Montanabw ^(talk) 04:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kaitlyn Clark[edit]

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

Not really my field, but I do not se the basis for notability of this college athlete. DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources do not indicate she was more than one of many college gymnasts.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The USA Gymnastics link seems to be up to date and does not have any results that meet WP:NGYMNAST. Agtx (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - early minor senior gymnast whose career petered out before it really began, then just another college sports girl, web searches trurn up social media and youtube videos of her college gymnastics performances. Kraxler (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tough competitor but, as per above, not seeing the sources needed to indicate WP:NOTE.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Abell[edit]

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

Lack of notability. Nothing indicating that he passes WP:NACTOR or any other standards. Has a lot of minor parts in movies, mostly non-notable movies. I admittedly didn't review every single movie, but a pattern was clear. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I would've suggested moving elsewhere such as Soldier of God (2005) for which it seems he won two awards as listed at IMDb and my searches found results here, here, here and here. However, nothing to suggest solid and independent notability so, although he has achived quite a few movies, there's not much that can set this apart from the IMDb profile (which is more acceptable and lenient with pages). This is also probably best deleted as a copyvio was added here (by SPA Lynnmetts) until removed and it's worth noting this has stayed since May 2004 here. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did consider those awards, but since none of those film festivals have been established as notable here, I really didn't give them much weight. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a list of films is not sufficient to meet WP:NACTOR criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 03:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Jörg Schellmann. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Schellmann Art[edit]

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

Unsourced SPA-created promo article. No independent significant coverage found. The founder, Jörg Schellmann, has a bio article, where art and furniture activities are already briefly summarized. GermanJoe (talk) 10:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Jorg Schellman as my searches found nothing to suggest solid independent notability aside from results here and here. SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 12:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Among editors who do not appear to have a conflict of interest, there is consensus that the notability requirements aren't met. Sandstein 07:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tryad[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was already proposed for deletion twice. Redirected in 2005 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tryad (2nd nomination)) and deleted in 2008 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tryad (3rd nomination)). The re-creation still does not provide any sources that satisfy WP:GNG; mostly self-published sources. -- intgr [talk] 09:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means as unfortunately there is no good coverage, not even in the least, and my searches (News, Books, highbeam and thefreelibrary) confirmed this. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because information from an interview has been added since the article's nomination for deletion. This interview is not self-published, as it was written by an individual unassociated with Tryad. Because of this, at least one source that satisfies WP:GNG exists. Muffins94 (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Note: User:Mffins94 is the creator of this article.[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 12:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. One non-self published source does not satisfy WP:NMUSIC as there needs to be "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." Also note that WP:GNG uses the word "sources" meaning more than one is required. Googling the band returns no results that are non-trivial and the article creator has unfortunately come to the same conclusion. Wugapodes (talk) 06:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then redirect to triad (as in the 1st AFD, as a common alternate spelling). Independent notability has not been established; sources given are blogs or affiliated with the subject. —Lowellian (reply) 00:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added two notable news articles regarding the Tryad Apple iTunes LP release and a second interview. Avavrek (talk) 03:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC) — Avavrek (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note There is a member of this band named Andrew Vavrek.[reply]
Keep (as original nominator): Three reliable sources are present now; "substantial coverage" is debatable, but the article seems fair and factual, and the project is still active, so can gain more notoriety in the future. -- intgr [talk] 10:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What three sources do you consider reliable? Please clarify, because as User:Kraxler points out below, I'm not seeing even one reliable source here, much less three. —Lowellian (reply) 05:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete contrary to the statement here above, there seem to be no reliable sources independent of the subject (please say which ones you consider RS), all sources in the article are primary, self-publiushed, or blogs, perhaps except the Ars Technica ref which has a trivial mention of Tryad, only. Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. Kraxler (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. If you aren't happy with this decision, please bring it up on the article talk page and renom if needed.Missvain (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

César Curti[edit]

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

Lacks the depth of coverage required to meet WP:GNG and WP:BLPNOTE Flat Out (talk) 05:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't usually comment with these because I'm not all that familiar with modelling but my searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found no good third-party coverage. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 12:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Actually, there are quite a lot of Portuguese Google News hits about an exercise regime created and founded by this person. I was highly dubious and sceptical that it was the same César Curti, but then I found this which confirms that it is the same person (same birthday). Other sources include [12] and [13], to name 2. If he was solely known for winning the pageant, I would say delete, but he has clearly gotten coverage and evidence of ongoing notability for reasons beyond winning the competition. The article should be expanded to reflect that he is more than a beauty contest winner. Mabalu (talk) 10:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is indeed the same person, the pageant is mentioned in the text. I added the source about his "Mahamudra" coaching to the article. There is actual much more coverage on his current exercises than on his pageant winning. Passes easily WP:GNG Kraxler (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

5Star Captain[edit]

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

Fails general notability guideline. Virtually no Google results, certainly nothing at Google News or Google Books. Article has no secondary sources that support any claim of notability. Fails WP:NMUSIC. Also reads as promotional, so speedy might be an option. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My first searches immediately found nothing to suggest good coverage. SwisterTwister talk 05:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 11:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete marketing piece of a nonnotable musician68.148.186.93 (talk) 22:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Border City Fire Department[edit]

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

Nothing cited on the page. Nothing notable about the department. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For the record (since I have nominated multiple fire department pages for deletion), I am NOT anti-fire department!! I work for a fire department as a photographer. My issue is with tiny, non-notable departments having poorly done pages that just say "There is a department here, they fight fires..." In this case, there is not enough information available about the department to even make a full page. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I wouldn't call it poorly done, just unsourced. Being unsourced is not necessarily a cause for deletion, but is a need for improvement. It's part of a series of articles being written on New York fire departments. See navbox at the bottom of the article page.— Maile (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 11:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found 2 sources [14] in a google news search, none of which are indepth mentions. Other websearches turned up map links such as an apparel online marketplace, otherwise nothing notable. Runofthemill department. 96.52.0.249 (talk) 03:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run-of-the-WP:MILL local department, no sources (only source is alink to something which displays Asian hieroglyphs), no coverage, no significance Kraxler (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Rock[edit]

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

No references, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Richhoncho (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 11:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete zero evidence of meeting WP:NSONG. LibStar (talk) 13:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stradalli Cycle[edit]

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

This is the most unnecessary and blatant article I've ever come across on Wikipedia, clearly designed for marketing purposes as it even appears in the footer of this business's website - see [15]. If one were to View History [16], it appears others have opposed and tried to delete the article without, however, following the Deletion Policy steps? I hope I have done this right... Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to:

poorly written and of no encyclopedic value
clear self promotion, advertising/marketing intent (see comment above about business' website) - Wikipedia:G11#G11
little significance and little notoriety (just one of many small scale bicycle businesses who these days buy SE Asian carbon frames and slap their branding on them) - Wikipedia:A7#A7
vast amount of red links indicative of lack of notoriety for associated content

CtrlXctrlV (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The promotional material could be removed, but that would leave us with zero. I found numerous discussions on bicycling boards, but nothing in published sources - which seems odd because the chatter on the boards was lively, both pro and con. The article itself only cites press releases. Perhaps someone knows of good sources for reliable bicycling sources. I'll check back. LaMona (talk) 01:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FK Slavoj Trebišov[edit]

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

Appears to be an non-notable team. While there are no specific guidelines I can find, they are not in a top league in their country and have very little coverage I can find. Mdann52 (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the club reached the quarter-finals of the 1980–81 Slovak Cup. I don't think it's ever played in the top-level of Czechoslovakia or Slovakia, but that cup run is significant. I'll see if I can find some coverage, but I doubt it's online given the year. Jogurney (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jogurney, has played in the national Cup competition, which is a usual indication of notability for football clubs. Article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 08:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - country have played in a national competition. Fenix down (talk) 08:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Jogurney the team has played in the Slovak Cup a national competition.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Senior Lieutenant. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Starshy leytenant[edit]

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

This article would be an instant WP:CSD#A10 if its content were not so much better than the previous Senior lieutenant. The best outcome would be for the material to be located at Senior lieutenant and Starshy leytenant redirected there. That would seem to me non-controversial, however the author User:HHubi insists on this title as "the correct transcription of the Russian wording", and dislikes the translation. To avoid WP:3RR, here we are. Bazj (talk) 12:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge reliably sourced content to senior lieutenant and delete this article, per nom. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 13:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 13:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 13:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note that the editor in question has created or contributed to many similar articles about ranks in other languages. The whole corpus of articles on ranks on Wikipedia needs a huge overhaul. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Senior lieutenant; that article contains essentially the same information. WP:TITLE is clear that Wikipedia pages should normally have English-language titles, unless the foreign-language phrase is widely used in English-language sources, and a very brief survey suggests that "senior lieutenant" is the term normally used in English-language sources for this rank. Colapeninsula (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per nom. AustralianRupert (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. I did the merge last night - you can see the results at Senior lieutenant. User:HHubi merely reverted my creation of a redirect at Starshy leytenant, which is how we ended up here. Shem (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I agree wholeheartedly with Necrothesp - the ranks at Wikipedia are in a complete mess. The guidance at Wikipedia:Article_titles#English-language_titles says "On the English Wikipedia, article titles are written using the English language." Thus we should have an article at Senior lieutenant with redirects from Starshy leytenant, Oberleutnant, Yliluutnantti and any others out there. Shem (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - per nomination. Anotherclown (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy A10. Peridon (talk) 14:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some simple and good diet[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a webhost for advice on nutrition. I dream of horses (T) @ 12:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Personal essay on the author's own thoughts on nutrition. Just no. Updated to speedy delete for WP:CSD#A10 of healthy diet.WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTESSAY, and would have duplicated Healthy diet in spirit anyway. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 12:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTESSAY. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The content has been copied verbatim from some "BerkeleyWellness.com"'s articles (violates WP:C policies). While Berkeley Wellness can be argued that could pose as a valid secondary source, the Wiki article itself doesn't add significant value to the topic of nutrition science, human nutrition, diet, or healthy diet. In the actual form, the wiki article is an honeypot ready to be vandalized by supporters of pseuso-sciences and quackery associated to nutrition. On top of that, Berkeley Wellness is a collaboration between the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley, and a national team of writers and editors, plus they rely on researchers at UC Berkeley, and as well as top scientists from around the world; so far so good, they are a reliable academic source, backed by respected mainstream publications, but they host original contents too, which cannot be counted as reliable sources by WP:V policies. Toffanin (talk) 11:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SAMTIME[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:RS and WP:BIO Kleuske (talk) 11:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete For reasons mentioned above. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete – Does not meet WP:BASIC. Not finding any coverage in reliable sources to qualify an article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing to suggest this even comes to close to meeting the minimal notability and third-party coverage required. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as notability not fulfilled and no independent resources. Wikimalte (talk) 12:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Subject seems to lack "significant coverage" in reliable sources and therefore doesn't meet the notability requirement of the WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually, there is enough evidence that he exists and is not dead. 92.17.191.215 (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G11). MER-C 12:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Homeofeideas[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and is blatant advertising. Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And always has been. Deleted. MER-C 12:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parahuman[edit]

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

Neologism for "human chimera" with no verifiable currency in third-party reliable sources - literally one usage is cited. There were a pile of sources that talked about the concept, but didn't use the word "parahuman" (old version); those were culled a few weeks ago, but no better ones have been added. Was PRODed, PROD was removed without ensuing improvement. Web searches mostly show a science fiction story using the term for "superheroes". There's a Transhumanism Wikia article which is a copy of an old version of this one, with the same reference problems. - David Gerard (talk) 09:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:Neologism —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be transhumanism cruft better suited for a dedicated wiki. Sources are not forthcoming. jps (talk) 12:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; we do not publish original research. Bearian (talk) 10:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unclear, to say the least, about whether this article discusses hypothetical biology or science fictional tropes; hence why it's tagged as both "genetic engineering" and "furry fandom". Unless that can be clarified, there's no concrete subject here. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 22:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to human-animal hybrid, which is a more common term than parahuman, and a common subject in science fiction and fantasy literature. Human-animal hybrid currently redirects to this page, but its revision history will be lost if the parahuman article is deleted. Jarble (talk) 02:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 07:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AVS Video Editor[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

As a result of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 July 3, this recreation of a previously deleted article is made subject to a deletion discussion. Please refer to that discussion for reasons why it should be deleted or retained. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 07:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep article is not overly promotional, and there are enough independent references with substantial content to meet WP:GNG. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 July 3#AVS Video Editor:

Extended content
Overturn the ((db-repost)) per RoySmith's analysis. I've reviewed the latest draft and do not believe that it CSD G11: "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." applies. Here are some sources I found about the subject: Winder, Davey (2007-10-10). "AVS Video Editor review". Alphr. Archived from the original on 2015-07-05. Retrieved 2015-07-05. Mantilla, Daniel (2015-06-28). "AVS Video Editor 4.1". Software Informer. Informer Technologies. Archived from the original on 2015-07-05. Retrieved 2015-07-05. Chadwick, Danny. "AVS Video Editor X6". Top Ten Reviews. Archived from the original on 2015-07-05. Retrieved 2015-07-05. "AVS Video Editor". Softonic.com. 2015-04-14. Archived from the original on 2015-07-05. Retrieved 2015-07-05. User:Elee Bikin Keren Video Ponsel (in Indonesian). Yogyakarta: Galangpress Group. 2008. pp. 167–173. ISBN 9791828423. Retrieved 2015-07-05. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow AVS Video Editor to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] You didn't pay attention to the important qualifier: "independent" for sources. I don't think that sources which sell the tool are independent in wikipedia's understanding of the conflict of interest.Staszek Lem (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] If those sources are disqualified, then the subject still would pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Here are some more sources: Elosaily, Mohamed (2015-04-17). "برنامج AVS Video Editor لتعديل الفيديو واضافة التأثيرات". عاجل نيوز: الرئيسية (in Arabic). Archived from the original on 2015-07-09. Retrieved 2015-07-09. Thứ bảy (2014-07-19). "AVS Video Editor 6.5: Quay và dựng phim chuyên nghiệp". Cherry Radio (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 2015-07-09. Retrieved 2015-07-09. These two sources, added to http://www.khoahocphothong.com.vn/news/detail/12774/avs-video-editor-6-.2---bien-tap-video-chuyen-nghiep-danh-cho-nguoi-.-.-.-khong-chuyen.html, the review in the magazine PC Pro (now called Alphr), and the coverage in the book Bikin Keren Video Ponsel, clearly establish that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 06:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Overturn the ((db-repost)) per RoySmith's analysis. I've reviewed the latest draft and do not believe that it CSD G11: "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." applies.
Here are some sources I found about the subject:
1. Winder, Davey (2007-10-10). "AVS Video Editor review". Alphr. Archived from the original on 2015-07-05. Retrieved 2015-07-05.
2. Mantilla, Daniel (2015-06-28). "AVS Video Editor 4.1". Software Informer. Informer Technologies. Archived from the original on 2015-07-05. Retrieved 2015-07-05.
3. Chadwick, Danny. "AVS Video Editor X6". Top Ten Reviews. Archived from the original on 2015-07-05. Retrieved 2015-07-05.
4. "AVS Video Editor". Softonic.com. 2015-04-14. Archived from the original on 2015-07-05. Retrieved 2015-07-05.
5. Bikin Keren Video Ponsel (in Indonesian). Yogyakarta: Galangpress Group. 2008. pp. 167–173. ISBN 9791828423. Retrieved 2015-07-05.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow AVS Video Editor to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't pay attention to the important qualifier: "independent" for sources. I don't think that sources which sell the tool are independent in wikipedia's understanding of the conflict of interest.Staszek Lem (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If those sources are disqualified, then the subject still would pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Here are some more sources:
1. Elosaily, Mohamed (2015-04-17). "برنامج AVS Video Editor لتعديل الفيديو واضافة التأثيرات". عاجل نيوز: الرئيسية (in Arabic). Archived from the original on 2015-07-09. Retrieved 2015-07-09.
2. Thứ bảy (2014-07-19). "AVS Video Editor 6.5: Quay và dựng phim chuyên nghiệp". Cherry Radio (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 2015-07-09. Retrieved 2015-07-09.
These two sources, added to http://www.khoahocphothong.com.vn/news/detail/12774/avs-video-editor-6-.2---bien-tap-video-chuyen-nghiep-danh-cho-nguoi-.-.-.-khong-chuyen.html, the review in the magazine PC Pro (now called Alphr), and the coverage in the book Bikin Keren Video Ponsel, clearly establish that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 06:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard (talk) 01:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Southern Shaolin Monastery. Consensus is that if this is to be covered, it should be in a subsection of that article. Sandstein 07:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Shaolin Temple of Fu Qing (Ruins)[edit]

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

POV fork of Southern Shaolin Monastery. States as fact that the ruins of this have been veriified although our articles says about this supposed structure " whose existence and location are both disputed". No sources. Of the three external links, the first seems some sort of social network or Wikipedia like page, the 2nd doesn't discuss ruins of a monastery but of a hospital, while the third is a forum. Doug Weller (talk) 14:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, those of you guys outside of China are not easily access to websites of China (filtering or whatever) and the speed of accessing websites of China are extremely slow, however if you are in China right now there are so many documentaries of "The discovery of Southern Shaolin Ruins" for you to watch in youku.com, tudou.com, etc plus tons of websites regarding it. Same thing, come over to China and stay a few days, you will find Google, facebook, youtube, etc are so difficult to access. The link that i provided has pictures of the Ruins but the website is not easy to get in for those outside of China. Anyway try look at this link written in Chinese "在1993年6且4日，在福清市东张镇少林自然村，找到了少林寺遗址。又经福建省、福州市联合考古队对遗址进行考古发掘，出土大量珍贵文物，诸如遗址中发现“少林院”、“少林”等石刻铭文，以及石桥、石盂、石槽、石碾(药臼)、石碑、石础、石舂臼、石磨、石香炉、瓷器、钱币、铜镜，还有和尚墓塔等上千件文物，不胜枚举使少林寺遗址得到科学的验证。这一争论多年的历史悬案，终于有了圆满的答案。福清发现的少林寺遗址，史册记载之多，遗址规模之宏伟，遗迹结构之完整，遗物分布之广泛丰富，以及所显示的文化内涵与河南嵩山少林寺之相似，在福建都是仅见的。特别是经过省、市考古队对遗址进行考古发掘，无论在史证和物证两方面，与史籍记载相符的福建少林寺(史称南少林寺)。　这个重大成果已得到各界专家肯定。特别是嵩山少林寺三十三代法师、中国国际友好联络会理事、嵩山少林寺武术学校校长释永寿听说后，特地率团到福清考察南少林寺遗址，经过七天的考察研究，他向外界郑重宣布，福清南少林寺的寺址无可置疑是名副其实的南少林寺遗址。因此，我们有理由认为，中国南北两个少林寺是历史的事实，我们也有理由认为南少林寺在福清。一九九四年十一月，福建省宗教局和福州市政府先后批准福清市在遗址上重建南少林寺，福清市各界人士及海外华侨共集资5000万元人民币用于重建南少林寺　"

My very rough translation goes like this "in 1993, the ruins of southern shaolin has been discovered through the archeological team of Fujian state with lots of artifacts unearthed and finally the existence of southern shaolin has a perfect answer especially after the verification of 7 days by Headmaster Shi YongShou and his team coming from the Shaolin Monastery of Song Mountain ...."

http://www.chinansls.com/read.asp?id=87 User778326198 (talk) 03:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Chinese version of Southern Shaolin Temple of Fu Qing (Ruins) is already up, so what is wrong for the English version? btw, I am still very new to editing Wikipedia... User778326198 (talk) 03:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, try watch videos from websites of China, this is one of the documentaries of Southern Shaolin Temple of Fu Qing (Ruins) 追踪南少林 http://www.tudou.com/listplay/st1Fnb2pP-o/LKZcLpWIMVY.html http://www.cntv.cn/program/tsfx/20070625/107373.shtml User778326198 (talk) 03:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it there are at least three towns that have ruins claimed to be the fabled Southern Shaolin Temple in additon to Fu Quiq including Quanzhou and Putian. It is far from definative and again this sounds like something that should be mentioned in the Southern Shaolin Temple article not stand alone. If something exists in one wiki version does not mean it should exist in another.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above. No reliable source links those particular ruins to a disputed temple. I could see the information being added as a subsection of Southern Shaolin Temple with the appropriate qualifications (i.e.. ruins found here have been claimed to be...) but really this is an attempt to shoe horn history.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (perhaps expressing skepticism) to Southern Shaolin Monastery. The issue seems to be that the monastery has been regarded as almost mythical, a claim that it has been discovered and partly excavated would seem to be notable. I cannot tell whether we have WP:RS, as I do not read Chinese. However an archaeological excavation of 6500 sq m in 7 days is hardly credible, unless it was in fact bulldozed. Similarly the views of a headteacher will hardly be those of an archaeological expert. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read it as the headmaster visited the site (previously excavated) for 7 days.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Philg88 ^♦talk 06:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still say merge. This is the case of an unknown temple and an archaeological site which is claimed to be the lost temple. They are obviously something that should be in separate parts of the same article. An archaewologcal excavation of an area as big as 65m x 100m, which produced significant results is itslef likely to be notable. However, the headmaster's visit is probably NN and what he wrote will not be the best source. Peterkingiron (talk) 08:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 01:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Smith & Wesson Model 460[edit]

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

Article has no reference that WP:V verifies the WP:GNG notability of this subject. Googling mostly turn up trivial mentions in mainstream media. It therefore doesn't appear this product had any particular significance with regards to world history, its intended market, the development of handguns or firearms in general. AadaamS (talk) 06:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 07:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE...I have no idea what AadaamS is talking about...My GOOGLE search on the S&W 460 scored 557,000 hits. The fist page alone showed articles by GUNS & AMMO, OUTDOOR LIFE, and SPORTSMAN'S GUIDE, and is currently listed in the S&W catalog http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Category4_750001_750051_757767_-1_757751_757751_image. It clearly meets all Wiki notability guidelines.--RAF910 (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I google I only get sales outlets on the first three pages and only two trade magazines. It could be due to my other surfing habits that Google tracks. At any rate, the S&W catalog as a primary source can only verify the existence of this revolver, not its notability. How does the Guns & Ammo, Outdoor Life sources demonstrate this revolver is notable? Has it sold in unusually large numbers? Has it been adopted by police, border security forces or foresters? Is it innovative? Please be specific. AadaamS (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Competence is required...to claim that GUNS & AMMO is not a notable source of information on guns is the equivalent of claiming that CAR & DRIVER is not a notable source of information on cars. Combined with his other comments it is clear that AadaamS incompetent on this subject matter. While I have no doubt that AadaamS is honestly trying to help, the article does not need to be deleted because it lacks references. The article simply needs a few references which I have just added.--RAF910 (talk) 16:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Guns & Ammo reference http://www.gunsandammo.com/video/new-smith-wesson-460xvr-model-929-performance-center-revolvers/ only describes the features of this revolver, it doesn't explain why this revolver is important. It doesn't outline its long history, it doesn't name any innovative features. It's simply a description for a commercial firearm with a buyer's instruction. The same goes for the Outdoor Life article, it only describes the features and the usage of this piece of machinery: http://www.outdoorlife.com/articles/gear/hunting/2007/09/gun-review-smith-wessons-460xvr-revolver. I think this revolver's best claim so far to notability would be that its number of review (number according to User:RAF910) could amount to significant coverage per WP:SIGCOV. I never said that Guns & Ammo mag itself isn't notable, so don't attack me for it. The notability of that magazine dosn't endow notability on every weapon it reviews because notability can't be inherited. AadaamS (talk) 20:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this nomination is completely absurd. This revolver and its slightly larger counterpart represent the top threshold of power fired from a handgun round offered by a factory. These are not "one-off" custom pieces but mainstream offerings that have changed the game of handgun hunting in America and Africa to the degree that companies offering bolt action pistols chambered in rifle rounds such as the Savage Striker have eliminated those product lines. The cartridge design and the rifling in the bore are completely unique and represent a working dynamic between S&W, Cor-Bon and Hornady to produce a powerful round in a versatile revolver.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per above. Faceless Enemy (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closed by nominator

Camille Felton[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, there is apparently a french article which I believe to about the same person which is unsourced as well. I'm removing the biography section for now as it's a BLP that wholly unsourced other than a link to a IMDB article. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - See comment below. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 07:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 07:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I added a couple sources to get started. She's not hugely notable but seems to have had enough roles to meet GNG and is decently known in Quebec. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While the effort is appreciate those two references are basic press releases and basically blog sites and questionably notable. Sulfurboy (talk) 08:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've also added a newspaper article, focused on her, called "The Camille Felton Effect." —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After looking at news sites there are many references to this person in independent writings. Removing content and then nominating for deletion is inappropriate as it makes the article look much weaker than it was before. Anyway I have restored the biography and added more references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination and comment Due to the efforts of the above editors I am withdrawing my nomination and requesting a speedy close. Also, it wasn't my intent to be inappropriate in removing a section of the article and then nominating it. That original section was a copyvio and needed to be blanked. From there I was unable to find more sources at which time I nominated. Cheers. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geron Johnson[edit]

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

NBA Summer League player (which to my understanding does not satisfy WP:NBASKETBALL. —teb728 t c 06:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I only declined the speedy because I believed he had played in proper NBA. He hasn't, so fails WP:GNG and WP:NBASKETBALL. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article as it stands is not great, but I can find sources to establish this passes GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like this. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have expanded the article, I would say it meets GNG. DaHuzyBru (talk) 08:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG. For establishing notability, non-independent coverage is usually ruled out such as his school's website (GoTigersGo.com), and his conference's (ConferenceUSA.com). I usually wouldn't use NBA.com either, though they claim to be independent. Still, in addition to significant coverage already in the article from Memphis Commercial Appeal, 247Sports.com, and CBS Sports, I also found online ones from SportsNet New York ("Geron Johnson to Memphis"), NBC Sports ("Memphis adds risky, former top 100 JuCo transfer Geron Johnson"), and Sporting News ("Memphis’ Geron Johnson suspended for impermissible benefits").—Bagumba (talk) 08:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just want to point out, I was just filling out that article with content in a "generic" way that I sometimes do with articles in terms of college info. And the best way to do that is with official bios, which I know is a primary source. Those additions by User:Editorofthewiki were great, so it should certainly meet GNG now. DaHuzyBru (talk) 11:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe with the new sources he meets GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 09:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tito loho[edit]

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

Non-notable internet personality. Primary sources only. Couldn't find any English-language secondary sources indicating notability (but if anyone speaks Bahasa Indonesia it might be worth looking). Agtx (talk) 05:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No citations from reliable independent secondary sources. Subject does not satisfy any of the notability guidelines. WWGB (talk) 05:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 07:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 07:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self-promoting spam for an internet nonentity Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) JAaron95 ^Talk 13:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Atherton[edit]

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

Article is a recreation of one previously deleted via PROD. Subject appears to fail WP:BASIC and WP:CREATIVE. Source coverage is trivial at best. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, subject is notable and has been a cinematographer on a number of very successful films, Fatal Attraction, Indecent Proposal, Black Rain, Bad Boys. Neptune's Trident (talk)
Keep - successful film cinematographer and Emmy nominee. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conceding the Emmy nom moves the needle, there is very little coverage in RS sources that would indicate his importance. And an award nomination does not establish notability. If he had won, that would have rung the N bell. As for the films he was involved with, notability is not inherited. We need extensive secondary source coverage ABOUT HIM. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited except per WP:CREATIVE, which states subject's works must have won significant critical attention. Subject, as cinematographer for Oscar- and Emmy-nominated films, meets this criteria. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or secondly redirect to Gulliver's Travels (not currently mentioned though) as the Emmy nom is one of the best shots at notability; my searches didn't find much here, here and here. This is a somewhat similar case to Charonne Mose which I nominated due to notability issues and an Emmy being the only solid thing holding the article and I still believe it's vulnerable to BLP issues (although Howard's article is a little better while Charonne apparently retired from the biz industry). SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn and moved to List of radio stations in Sonora. That's probably the best idea here in any event. Raymie (t • c) 05:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of radio stations in Hermosillo[edit]

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

This is one of just two city-specific lists of radio stations in Mexico, other than List of radio stations in Distrito Federal (Mexico City, which is its own state). We don't even have these for US cities. Until a week ago, there were zero blue links for stations from this list. Raymie (t • c) 02:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One solution would be to move to List of radio stations in Sonora and expand. postdlf (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lists of radio stations alone should never be organized on any unit smaller than the level of an entire state or province, per established practice of WP:WPRS. Individual cities are allowed to have broader media lists which include their radio, television and print media, but should not have lists of just their radio stations (except maybe in the rare instance, such as Mexico City or Washington DC, where the city is actually a standalone state, province or capital district in its own right — and even then, it should still maybe just be merged into a broader "media in city" list anyway.) And for added bonus, nearly all of the stations here are still redlinks. Move to List of radio stations in Sonora and expand per Postdlf. Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Genck Azonho[edit]

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

I could not verify this person's existence via Google. The Snowager-is awake 02:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Also, all Google mentions are either a) derived from Wikipedia or b) completely trivial. The fact that there is virtually no mention for the supposedly "best known for" work on Google makes me think we are dealing with someone not notable or a hoax. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete a quick search turned up nothing. Neither did a search on WP Espanol.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely no indication that this writer existed - nothing found for him or his supposed work. Since such references would be plentiful for any actual writer (even many not meeting WP:N), the article appears to be a hoax. Calamondin12 (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by all means as my searches found absolutely nothing. If the nominator hadn't taken it, I would've. SwisterTwister talk 21:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clubbing axe[edit]

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

Like Antonina Markovic, I also cannot find anything to confirm this is real. If it is, then it's not notable and full of original research. Adam9007 (talk) 01:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Axe it. Individual foam weapons don't merit articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even a redirection to foam fighting is useful in this case. AadaamS (talk) 06:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per Axe it.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With no sources and no indication of notability, there doesn't appear to be any reason to keep this article. Papaursa (talk) 20:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Axe it, as per Clarityfriend. Not notable for encyclopedic tastes. The Snowager-is awake 07:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Siwe[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Speedy deletion per WP:G4 was contested by an IP without providing a reason, and should still apply in my opinion, as the subject has still not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article still fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G4. —teb728 t c 05:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Qed237 (talk) 12:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject is not notable. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 22:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 13:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Range-IT[edit]

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

No indication of importance. Parts of the article seem like an advert and it doesn't comply with the general notability guideline. --Anar chyte 08:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 12:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article on an EU FP7 funding project due to complete in November this year. The article describes the project proposition and provides links to the websites of the various recipients of the grant funding, but searches (Highbeam, Google) are not turning up evidence of attained notability for the project. AllyD (talk) 06:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Margalla Electronics[edit]

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

No in-depth coverage in reliable, secondary sources to establish notability. Fails WP:CORP. Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 04:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete insufficient sourcing to meet WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately as my searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found nothing in the slightest with the best being this at Books. SwisterTwister talk 05:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. Musa Talk 00:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Thanks everyone for participating in this discussion. If you are unhappy with this decision please discussion is here. Thank you! Missvain (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Miranda[edit]

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

It appears to me that this individual fails WP:GNG. Sources provided are no more than WP:ROUTINE in nature, and the B Ref sources are less than that, merely verifying that he played minor league ball. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wizardman 14:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Being a former minor leaguer and current minor league coach is not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His extensive career is notable. Alex (talk) 09:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- For Baseball Reference Bullpen, sure. For Wikipedia, no. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. If you aren't happy with this decision please bring it up on the article talk page and renominate if needed. Missvain (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Bacon[edit]

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

Potentially non-notable author. I dream of horses (T) @ 00:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: I think we have many such pages on Wikipedia which are not nominated for deletion. I think we should give time to creator for adding more sources. He has given some sources in external link section. --Human3015 knock knock • 00:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I dream of horses, we should encourage new users, I appreciate you because you gave me 60 link Welcome message when I was new. User talk:Human3015/Archive 1. Same way I have given welcome message to creator of this page Asajidaba, so I will try to encourage him, though his page may get deleted. --Human3015 knock knock • 00:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks for your comments, I dream of horses and Human3015 I'm new to this, and appreciate the feedback :)). I added a few more links & references, hope that helps! -Asajidaba
Comment Short reviews in Publishers Weekly[17], Kirkus Reviews[18], Common Sense Media[19], Daily Kos[20], but nothing in-depth. Marginal notability. Colapeninsula (talk) 09:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy so that better references can be added, and take draft through articles for creation so that it gets some viewing before moving to main space. LaMona (talk) 23:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Creator added some sources, also there are some external links. Author wrote several books. --Human3015 knock knock • 00:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Following up, sources have been added, but they are almost all sales sites for the books, plus a blog. None are sources that would support notability; they only show that the books exist. Looking in Amazon it appears that School Library Journal has reviewed the books - although I'm not sure how that would translate to notability for the author. I found two articles featuring the author ([21], [22]), but neither is terribly strong. I'm thinking WP:TOOSOON, unless someone finds some better articles about the author. However, since we have an SPA who is working on the article, my !vote of Userfy stands. LaMona (talk) 01:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:AUTHOR #3, there are dozens of reviews of his books, some may be blogs, but they are certainly independent. Kraxler (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

World Institute of Pain[edit]

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

No evidence for notability DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Alexbrn (talk) 06:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 07:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG: lacks independent references (which I couldn't find) and is sourced to its own website. It reads like an advertisement. Ca2james (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Estonian Firefighting Museum[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Marked for notability concerns 18 months ago. Even the Estonian version of this article is based on the museum's own website. LibStar (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:ORG being documented in detail in A Guide to the Museums of Tallinn. Andrew D. (talk) 10:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

if that's the best source you can find, hardly fits WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 11:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source contains multiple pages about the topic and so easily passes WP:SIGCOV. Andrew D. (talk) 11:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

surprised you haven't pulled out the useless WP:PRESERVE argument. A museum guide is hardly third party. Has this museum been covered in third party sources ? LibStar (talk) 11:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Found two articles in Estonian: using Google translate, the one from Eesti Päevaleht [23] seems to be about the museum's relocation, the one from Postimees [24] seems to be about their takeover of another museum. I'm not sure the translations are accurate so I'm only leaning keep right now. Altamel (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to be the official museum of a national government agency and also situated in an historic building. That's good enough for notability as far as I'm concerned. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 07:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulaziz Bin Turki Bin Talal Al-Saud[edit]

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

Poorly referenced, slightly promotional, and a direct copy of a declined draft that is currently being worked on. Creator has agreed to continue working on the draft to make it acceptable, so requesting deletion of this page in the meantime. Primefac (talk) 07:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HRH Prince Abdulaziz Bin Turki Bin Talal Abdulaziz Al Saud is a very well known person in Saudi Arabia and ,comes from the House of Saud, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. In the "Event" Section, all references has been provided with his accomplishments and greetings. All references that are implemented within this article are sufficient proof of what is quoted and edited into the draft. It is highly difficult to find further references and is still being worked on. The old draft has been deleted by me the user and would like to proceed further of action in regards to this article. If there are any further concerns or suggestions into what should be change or edited into this articles please notify me and i would happily proceed further with your suggestions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6vU0_95ru0

Chechnya official TV Video with the President of Chechnya

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpabDFkXZ44

Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibrahim.tabech (talk • contribs) 10:10, 25 June 2015‎ UTC

Note that the article creator has since requested speedy deletion of the draft (including the reviewer feedback on why it was rejected). --McGeddon (talk) 10:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 16:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, "Events" was updated and referenced identically as the rest through resourceful sites and journals. I as well as made some further research and found in-depth resources that could exchanged and referenced into the data. Please be notified that any information that is not citied well, that they will be as soon as i find valuable resources.

Your feedbacks are highly appreciated and well considered for. Thank You! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.99.249.3 (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - minor Saudi royals are not automatically notable. Bearian (talk) 04:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HRH Prince Abdulaziz bin Turki bin Tala Al Saud comes from a very important family tree Saudi Royal Family. Son of Prince Turki bin Talal bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud and Princess Sara Bint Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz, daughter of late King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibrahim.tabech (talk • contribs) 08:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:GNG, per the sources in the article. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFF aside, we do have an article on Prince George of Cambridge, a minor British royal. So being a minor royal is not forbidding to have an article. Kraxler (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not only Prince George (in direct line to be king), but we have articles on English princes and princesses that lived only a short time - see Princess Caroline of Gloucester, Margaret of York (1472), Mary Stuart (1605–1607). I can't find it but there was one about a royal child who lived only a few days. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm very surprised that despite even stating WP:OTHERSTUFF there are still OSE arguments flooding in. King Abdullah had 36 surviving children, and countless more grandchildren. This isn't the British nobility where there may be a half-dozen children at most (at to be honest, I'm sorely tempted to AfD Margaret of York). Being nobility does not make him automatically notable. I am curious what Wikimandia thinks about the article itself. Primefac (talk) 09:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the fact that he has a lot of relatives makes him less notable. He runs a corporation, makes royal appearances, etc. I also found coverage of him in Russian news as he does business in Chechnya. Yes, he's young, royal and rich, but he is involved in international business and receives coverage. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Btw Primefac, other AfDs on these royal children who did not survive infancy have not been successful. That's where I remember the one who lived about a week a few centuries ago. People consider royalty important, fair or not. I don't think Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Bouvier Kennedy (5th nomination) is going anywhere either. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, in my mind the whole point of an AfD is to establish a consensus about a specific article. If the consensus is keep, awesome. I'm not bothered one way or the other. Primefac (talk) 09:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First: WP:OTHERSTUFF is an essay, not a guideline. Essays have been summarily dismissed in other AfD discussions and elsewhere, depending on the convenience of the !voter. Second: I very much subscribe to OTHERSTUFF, it says "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do, or do not, exist; because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article...While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this." (my bolding) My main argument was that the subject passes easily WP:GNG. The comparison came up only as an additional reminder of general usage. By the way, this prince is as much in line to the throne as Prince George. In Saudi-Arabia, all male line descendants of Ibn Saud share an equal legal right to succeed to the throne, the actual Succession to the Saudi Arabian throne is decided by the choice of the reigning monarch. Kraxler (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meet WP:GNG. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 14:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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