< 1 June	3 June >

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

The result was redirect to Halifax Regional School Board. —Darkwind (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

St Catherine's School Halifax[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Unable to find significant third party coverage. But for the exemption from A7, I would have nominated for speedy. --Non-Dropframe _talk 23:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Halifax Regional School Board, per our usual practice for non-high schools. If anyone wants to look at it, the school's webpage is here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly not notable. I think this might qualify for WP:PROD. mikeman67 (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect Note: changed vote following Kudpung's comment, see explanation below No evidence of significant, reliable, secondary coverage. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Redirect to Halifax Regional School Board. I couldn't find any sources providing significant coverage, so it fails WP:GNG. APerson (talk!) 12:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict × 2) Changed vote to "Redirect" per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. APerson (talk!) 01:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Halifax Regional School Board per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect of course, to Halifax Regional School Board, per our usual practice for non-high schools as clearly documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and thousands of such redirects. IMO, neither Non-dropframe, Mikeman67, Vanamonde93, nor APerson have taken into account the existing consensus by precedent. AfD is not the venue for getting consensus for changing standard accepted procedures. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kudpung:, I read my initial vote more as "The content on this page in unencyclopedic" rather than "this should be a redlink." I was never opposed to a redirect, and I have no intentions of challenging consensus, even if it is only consensus by precendent. In retrospect, I can see my vote coming off that way, and therefore I have amended it to the more specific "redirect." Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Note for closing admin: if this is closed as 'Redirect' please remember to place the ((R from school)) template on the redirect page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List Of Obstacles On American Ninja Warrior[edit]

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

Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Although descriptions of these obstacles may well be worth including, simply listing every single obstacle every time it's been used is simply a collection of indiscriminate information. --Non-Dropframe _talk 23:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. This list originates as a section from the American Ninja Warrior article, and that list has been removed by both me and other editors for the same reason this article is up for deletion. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 14:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and batten down the hatches: Looking over the edit history of the creator, whose sole Wikipedia activity is based around the TV show, it's rife with edit warring and nasty edit summaries, so I suppose we ought to anticipate fireworks. Anyway, I agree with the nom: this is completely indiscriminate (never mind that the eye-blinding rainbow of colors used blows holes through the pertinent accessibility guidelines). It's also completely unsourced, and I defy anyone to come up with any reliable sources independent of the show's own websites. Wikipedia isn't a web host, and this information is better served on a fan page. Nha Trang ^Allons! 14:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as utterly, preposterously trivial. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There wouldn't be the good amount of sources to fix this article. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for all the reasons given. Let it be noted that JasonNolan64 is again, or still, edit warring to insert this tripe in the main article--where it also shouldn't be, for reasons given here. Drmies (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the creator, and those who like that creator fingerpaint all over the wiki, should read WP:COLOR, and maybe try to imagine how illegible their colored tables are for those with visual handicaps. Drmies (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Completely trivial, with no encyclopedic value. RoadWarrior445 (talk) 23:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems like cruft to me. Without significant coverage in reliable sources, it doesn't need an article on Wikipedia. Anyway, no true ninja could be stopped by a mere obstacle course. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or possibly redirect to American Ninja Warrior. Indiscriminate listcruft. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 20:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, more trivial Shad Innet (talk) 11:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not needed, just an indiscriminate list of unimportant things. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT. As none of these obstacles are notable, why aggregate them in an indiscriminate list? APerson (talk!) 13:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Overall consensus herein is leaning toward article retention, although more input would have been ideal. Placing the ((Cleanup AfD)) template atop the article per the discussion herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ganesh Ayyar[edit]

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

Pure puffery. "transformational thought leader" is pure jargon, and if that's what he's claimed to be,...

No evidence that he personally is responsible for any of the things listed here, the awards are as trivial as it gets. The refs are press releases DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 18:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Though article filled with too many WP:weasel and wp:peacock words but the subject is notable. Here are some of the citations that I found on him: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Mr RD 10:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is the CEO of a listed firm. Article seems a little rushed and not linked to the the right references, can increase notability by adding in the right links. Dhiraj1984 (talk) 11:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Dhiraj1984[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe redirect to company - Searches here, here and here found several results which could make him notable but I'm not sure he's independently notable so maybe moving to the company's article is good. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Esquivalience ^t 23:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 23:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - seems to be notable, but this article is off to a bad start due to poor citations and puffery. Bearian (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Denmark's Next Top Model (cycle 7). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Bo Elfving[edit]

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

Well I had a blp prod up but sources were added-even if unreliable-I am really unsure how notable this lady is even Wgolf (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete – Does not meet WP:GNG at all and the inappropriate sources cited do not support anything in the article. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 00:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Simply move to Denmark's Next Top Model (cycle 7) - Sure this model is not notable as evident by my searches (it could be the language barrier but unlikely) but I suppose it's worth mentioning at the main article and the only thing she is best known for. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Denmark's Next Top Model (cycle 7). Not separately notable, but might be a useful redirect; people looking for information about her probably would be doing so in the context of Denmark's Next Top Model. APerson (talk!) 13:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Denmark's Next Top Model (cycle 7). Not notable, no coverage outside the show. Kraxler (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OMA PAG[edit]

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

Possibly dissolved sub-group of the OMA. A few passing mentions don't add up to notability for an own article. If the group still exists (not sure, I found only old Google hits and the group is no longer mentioned on OMA's summary list of groups), a brief mention in the main article would be sufficient. GermanJoe (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and mention at main article as there are no good significant and notable sources talking about this. Searches find results here, here and here but nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced (the only source given in the article does not list OMA PAG), unnecessary content fork, group (if it did something) can be mentioned at OMA. Kraxler (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Carney[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, non-notable musician JMHamo (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found no significant and notable coverage as shown here (one link from News, DOOM Magazine), here (from Books, extremely minor mention), nothing at Highbeam and thefreelibrary and finally here (browser, various links such as LA Weekly) but nothing outstandingly significant and notable and, frankly, it doesn't take much to see this not to mention he is obscure and eccentric and that's not something that gets much attention sometimes. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only source in the article is the subjects own website. Nothing else can be found to establish notability. Article is pure self-promotion. Kraxler (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WiFiMAX[edit]

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

There's not a lot of sources talking about this and not much to suggest notability; my searches only found one Books, some News and some browser. Maybe there are a lot of good French sources but I'm not seeing anything to suggest that and I would've suggested moving elsewhere but there's no target. That article used to actually be one line until it was expanded with the current information in October 2010. SwisterTwister talk 22:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No independent refs, no notability, probable spam.Pincrete (talk) 10:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced (only one dead link), mostly WP:OR and partly nonsense. This article probably should be about this USB stick device. There is indeed something else called "Wifimax" in France, a relay antenna to get a signal in dark-spot areas. Kraxler (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Absolute Peach Podcast[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

previous discussion closed no consensus after no comments. There is no significant independent coverage to establish notability. _nonsense ferret 22:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My searches found links but nothing significant and notable. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional, non-notable, no coverage, nominated but did not win minor awards. Fails WP:GNG. Kraxler (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. A valid rationale for deletion has not been presented in the nomination. For examples of valid deletion rationales, see WP:DEL-REASON. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1993 Tour of Flanders[edit]

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

This happened a very long time ago, and I do not think it is a good article. ThatKongregateGuy (talk) 21:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:May I ask why this would be too long ago? The same article features in five other languages. Other projects have made articles of every single edition of this event, dating back to 1913. There are people working very hard to fill in the gaps of non-edited runnings of the race Dr.robin 21:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 1993 was too long ago? This is clearly a notable event and series, and anyway WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid deletion criteria. Crow^Caw 22:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep With all due respect, a really bad nomination based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Passes WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT, plus if this gets deleted, so should almost every sports article about an event prior to 1993. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow or speedy keep. Nominator has not advanced a substantial ground for termination, and on its face this was a notable race capable of sustaining an article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Navarro Elizalde[edit]

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

PROD with the reasoning that "All references are self-published blogs that fail WP:RS." was removed. References are supposedly added but they still fail RS, or references doesn't actually refer to his work as an artist but on some other career, such as reference #8. Most of the articles is cited from the Wikipilipinas wiki, which fails WP:RS. –H T D 09:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - found references in news articles from the Philippines, but nothing substantial —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 01:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Narrow Keep The fuller list of shows etc at ref 9 suggests he has some national stature. Johnbod (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. He was probably a notable artist: for example, this article in the Philippine Star describes "the late National Artist Jerry Elizalde Navarro" as "an intellectually astute and disciplined artist who helped father modern advertising in the Philippines, and was one of the key proponents in abstract painting." On the other hand, the current article gets his name backwards, and doesn't mention that he died in 1999, so we might need to take some care with the rest of its assertions. So this needs a good edit, or maybe it should get sent back to draft space until it's readier for prime time. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the fence but maybe keep simply because sources confirm he exists and received somewhat attention. Books found results that say "National artist" also and News also with one saying that a workshop was named for him "annual Jerry Elizalde Navarro Workshop on Arts Criticism in Baguio City" with Highbeam finding more results including one that says "pioneer artist". As is the case with most Filipino subjects, sources aren't always easy to find. SwisterTwister talk 20:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have a feeling that in recent years to the importance of the artist's need to write about it in the Washington Post, no less. The artist representing his country and heads of colleagues in their own country - it is a criteria for notability Shad Innet (talk) 10:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from the nominator. The article is so badly written I hadn't realized that this person is dead. That changes things up a bit as unlike people who are alive, who'd benefit from some good old-fashioned promotion like the other "artists" I nominated, the benefit of promotion is nil. –H T D 01:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 16:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BrickHouse Security[edit]

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

Non-notable company. References contain no in depth coverage of the company. Kaimahi (talk) 08:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article includes several mentions in prominent news organizations of the company, its products and its founder. Bloomberg's BusinessWeek, ABC News and The NY Times are directly cited. The Youtube video itself is a compilation of several prominent media mentions of the company via television appearances by its founder on Fox News, CNN and NBC's The Today Show. I will find more third party sources and add them to the article.Timtempleton (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added several more sources of media coverage to substantiate notability. Let's see what the consensus is.Timtempleton (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mentions is not what is needed. What is needed is in depth coverage of the company. Kaimahi (talk) 10:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC):Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am the author of this article. I have identified extensive media coverage of the company, including The New York Times, USA Today, the Today Show and Fox News. These are all reliable sources that are independent of the subject, the significant coverage addresses the company's products directly and in detail, and is indeed even international, thereby meeting the criteria of WP:GNG. The information is all verifiable, meeting the criteria of WP:NRV. The notability is not temporary, and is not based on a single short term event, thus meeting the criteria of WP:NTEMP. The extensive product coverage is almost sufficient to warrant one or more separate product pages, per WP:PAGEDECIDE, but for now the best place to collect all the information is in the company article.Timtempleton (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but clean up ref spam. References 1, 2 6, 9, 15 are not RS. 3, 8 are just a mention. 5 does not mention it at all. 10-11 are the same story, and 12=10. 14-17 are a single story; only one is needed. 18-20 are also same story - only one needed. LaMona (talk) 17:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article has been noticeably improved since being nominated. Simply out of curiosity @LaMona: How is a local TV station not reliable? Granted the news article is not in-depth and may have information supplied by the company but generally local news can be reliable. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't usually consider youtube to be a RS. It's the problem of "provenance" -- on youtube you don't know who is responsible for the content, and whether it has been edited. In this case, the video was uploaded by someone at Brickhouse (that's the link provided). The actual show on the site of the tv station would at least be more trustworthy. LaMona (talk) 15:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wish the television appearances were all available to direct link - they may be some day as storage gets cheaper and we move to 5G 1GB/s cellular streaming. I was able to find and add a record from the NBCUniversal.com site mentioning the Today Show appearance and description, just not the actual live video that is in the YouTube compilation. The two together should meet the RS criteria. As for the other links, they are all valid media outlets. I agree that there is some repetition in content, but that's to show the breadth of company media coverage. If the AFD is closed with a Keep resolution, I'll tighten up the repetitive sourcing.Timtempleton (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand with the YouTube link but I was actually referring to the myfoxdc.com link. SwisterTwister talk 20:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't consider that one non-RS, just redundant with the four other reports of the same thing -- most likely based on the original AP story. LaMona (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Recently, YouTube becomes a convenient place to store the information even at the official television channelsShad Innet (talk) 10:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:ORGDEPTH and thus also WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1415 Malautra[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) per NASTRO, redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. An old orbital study [8] and a 1986 paper proposing it as a flyby target [9] are not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1730 Marceline[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) per NASTRO, redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Two lightcurve studies [10] [11], a little below threshold for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1592 Mathieu[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) per NASTRO, redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Part of one 22-object lightcurve study, not enough [12]. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 00:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aberdeen Darts Association[edit]

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

non notable amateur darts league, can't find any independent coverage _nonsense ferret 20:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article unsourced since 2010, and largely untouched since 2012. Non-notable amateur club. Primefac (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Multiple searches found no good coverage for this particular group aside from two business listings and there's no target for moving elsewhere. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - I can't find anything either and judging by the fact it's been unsourced for the last 4/5 years i'd say no else can find bugger all either. –Davey2010^Talk 23:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Guy (Help!) 09:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

S.P.Y[edit]

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

I have been unable to find reliable sources to add to this article, except for the three that I had already added, and I don't think they're that good, really. Unless someone who is familiar with DJ notability can improve the referencing, I think the article should be deleted. I'm pretty sure that this in not the same person as Carlos Barbosa-Lima, despite the similar name. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More inclined to delete - Unless good Brazil sources are found, all my searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found nothing aside from the current sources. SwisterTwister talk 19:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: found this interview for a blog in the The Independent and a review by the Brazilian Rolling Stone of an album in which he guest performs. Maybe he barely passes our notability criteria? Victão Lopes ^Fala! 20:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Banford[edit]

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

I do not see how this person meets WP:MUSICBIO, WP:BIO, or WP:GNG. The article has been around for several years but from what I can see it has never had any secondary sources and there's no real claim to notability. bonadea contributions talk 20:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches found no significant and notable sources aside from a Resident Advisor bio and news links at that website. SwisterTwister talk 19:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources in the article are a record listing, a dead link, and the subjects own website (removed while I'm writing this); promotional article of non-notable subject, news search yields zero results. Kraxler (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation with appropriate sources. —Darkwind (talk) 02:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yannis Spathas[edit]

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

BLP which has been sourceless for almost a decade. Guitarist doesnt seem to have any independent notability separate from his band. I can't find any good sources about him. It could be because they're all in Greek, but better safe than sorry. Bosstopher (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inclined to delete unless good Greek sources are found - All my searches found nothing until Books found a few links and searching with the Greek name some results (I'm not sure if that's actually him though). From what I understand, I haven't found much that can be considered significant and notable unless they exist in Greek. SwisterTwister talk 19:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced and not independently notable of his band(s). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Tai[edit]

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

I couldn't find any evidence that this is a notable clan. I was partly hampered by only speaking English, and by Al-Tai being mistaken for Altai, so I chose AfD rather than prod. Boleyn (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I will assume that it was written in good faith, although the meaning of "clan" an an article with such sweeping assertions is unclear. Could be a transliteration of any of several Arabic surnames, but the main thing for our purposes is that as written it is worse than source-less, it is un-sourceable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed, my searches found absolutely nothing for this particular clan and only gave me results for Altai despite being detailed searches. SwisterTwister talk 19:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely unsourced, with extravagant and unlikely claims. Bearian (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Dragon deities. Smerge is a marginal winner, alternative is delete, no good evidence supporting a separate article. Guy (Help!) 09:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Io (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. There are no third party sources, It has been tagged since 2008 with no evidence of anyone even trying to find sources. One of the thousands of minor minor items in in the D&D that were created before WP:GNG was widely established or it would have been deleted upon sight but now meets continual resistance from the fans who insist on drawing out process for each and every item. So here we are. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History for those who might not be aware:

TSR is the company that initially created and marketed the Dungeons and Dragons game.
Wizards of the Coast WOTC bought out TSR
Piazzo Publishing was officially licensed to publish D&D materials.

Hence none of the three are independent sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise merge to Dragon deities. BOZ (talk) 02:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- so you are suggesting that the fix for there being no third party sourcing for this content is to move it to another article that fails to meet WP:GNG by having no third party sourcing? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am. I really don't see why we need third-party RS for a stupid Dungeons and Dragons character/deity. If the primary source invented the entire thing, they'll probably get the details right. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - The issue isnt "factuality" it is "notability - whether the subject has been noted by reliable sources outside of those intimately involved" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - again it's a stupid fantasy game, and the Io is not supporting the whole article.... It doesn't need to meet GNG anymore than say, anyone on the List of Mama's Family characters. If the dragon gods are notable enough to have their own article, and the io is a dragon god, by all means, stick it on that page. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        and again, that is directly the issue. There is no third party sources covering "the dragon gods" either. Taking content that fails to meet WP:GNG and mushing it into another article that fails to meet WP:GNG is a terrible non-solution to the issue. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Then you should also propose the Dragon gods for deletion and append it to this AfD. Delete both those suckers. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the first paragraph or the minimum acceptable amount to Dragon deities. Or delete if you like. I won't lose much sleep. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Much of the mythos D&D developed came from its army of licensed and affiliated novels, so there is a pretty substantial body of . . . stuff using the framework. Who is that author? Salvatore? Anyway, this "new" deity (input/output and punning on Hawaiian aboriginal religion and all kinds of things) is fanstuff. It isn't that there isn't a lot published even about it, but rather that the stuff about it is non-independent. There are cultural studies academics who comment on this stuff, too, but. . . Wikipedia doesn't need to be the -pedia of D&D as well as Pokemon (a jibe at the old days). Hithladaeus (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with TRPoD and Hithladaeus. A lot of this stuff belongs on Wikia, not Wikipedia. We've got an exhaustive collection of deities, magic items, and characters from D&D that really don't come close to satisfying the GNG. There's plenty of licensed material, but it's not independent. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dragon deities per BOZ. I don't think there's enough here to merit an individual article but don't see a problem with inclusion in a list article.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I will ask the same question I asked Boz whose proposal you are seconding - do you actually see as a viable fix for content that lacks third party coverage is to shove it into another article that also lacks third party coverage and is just about as unlikely to ever have such coverage ? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted; unambiguous copyright infringement. (non-admin closure) —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shinod Akkaraparambil[edit]

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

Non-notable artist / illustrator. I did a quick search and could not find any information about him. Natg 19 (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable topic. 83.11.57.99 (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC) That was me Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 16:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - copyright violation, copy/paste from his official website —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Internet phenomena. Ritchie333's semi-protection remains in force. JohnCD (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pepe the Frog[edit]

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

Non-notable, flash in the pan meme. A bit of coverage in early April, but no *lasting* in-depth coverage. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 15:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete and salt~~ A small amount of coverage, but not lasting, so fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB. Pretty sure this article has been done before (under a different name or on a userpage or draft), which is why I support the salt. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pepe the frog was deleted in January, and Feels good man has been salted since 2008, so Joseph2302 appears to be right. Everymorning talk 16:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Internet phenomena. It's not made up and there is a small amount of sources, and it does look like a valid search term. Additionally, having a redirect means nobody is tempted to recreate it with a slightly different title. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would accept this as an alternative, as long as the redirect was also protected, otherwise it will very quickly be replaced by this article again. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have already indefinitely semi-protected the article, believing that it will be continually attacked by meatpuppets adding unsourced content otherwise. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Internet phenomena per Ritchie333 then. It's a plausible redirect, but not worthy of its own article. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and "watch with an eye toward protect"?: I don't think that's a proper motion, but the "salt" seems to be necessary. This isn't the first time the frog has croaked. Hithladaeus (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or keep: I'd probably rather keep it. There's enough coverage for it - which is unusual for even established memes (even though they're in wide use [because there's not that much to report on even though they're ubiquitous to many]). And if Wikipedia intends to stay relevant and informative on many areas (saying all those that are notable in people's lives/society) it needs to recognize and integrate such. But as the article probably will never be longer than the average stub a redirect would be fine too - but then I think there should be subheaders for each entry on that list so that it can be linked properly (not just for this particular case but also for other Internet phenomena). --Fixut͉͇̞͖͉̼̭͉͓͑̈̉́͑ȗ̹̲ͨͮ̂̂̄ṙ̫̥͚͚̜͙͍̰́̈́ė̺̩̞̗̓̉ͧͩ̿ͤ̎̆ (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move as suggested above - My searches found no evidence this has been covered significantly and notably aside from two results here (Books) and here (News) and everything else News Archive, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary found. SwisterTwister talk 19:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE NORMIES EAT THE HEAT SKEET 2607:FB90:915:F644:F0A:4D24:FE17:E839 (talk) 00:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 02:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ric deGroot[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Subject was a keyboardist in a couple of bands. It was claimed at the previous AfD that he satisfied Criteria #6 of MUSICBIO. However, that criteria refers to somebody that was a prominent member of an ensemble. As keyboardist, the subject did not appear to be particularly prominent. Therefore, he fails Criteria #6 and clearly fails all other criteria. Safiel (talk) 15:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, same reason as last time: He's been in two bands of borderline notability. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. The article may be an WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, as the original author's username (Dikregrett) is a kind of an messed up anagram for the subject's name. Pburka (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move to Strange Advance as an alternative (it seems this second band lasted longest) - My searches found no significant and notable coverage aside from some results here. SwisterTwister talk 19:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yellowleg.com[edit]

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

Defunct company now although it just started in late 2011 as per the article.. Although found refs that it did exist but could not find anything that could establish notability. Even the official website has been taken down. Lakun.patra (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 15:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 15:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:A7 - non-notable defunct startup —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA article on a start-up. The given references are just start-up coverage and searches are returning nothing more than standard social media etc. No evidence that the venture ever attained notability. AllyD (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All my searches found nothing significant and notable aside from News results. SwisterTwister talk 19:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hal Baumgarten[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Most of the sources are little more than "D-day vet revisits Normandy" or interviews which lack independence. Neither are any of the criteria of WP:SOLDIER met. Nthep (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Everyone else prominent enough to be featured on the History Channel's programs about World War II has a bio on Wikipedia. If Baumgarten was wounded at Normandy, received a Bronze Star Medal, wrote a credible book about his experiences, and engaged in other activities which establish his prominence, he should be profiled. The article meets the criteria of WP:GNG and WP:SOLDIER. Rammer (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG in multiple ways, WP:SOLDIER, WP:AUTHOR, WP:KICKASSGUY —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't see any real notability. Private who got a very minor award (at a level not even considered a true medal by many countries rather than anywhere near the level we usually require for an article - in Britain we call this level of bravery award a mention in dispatches!), wrote his memoirs and has appeared on TV talking about his experiences just like hundreds of other veterans. It's a load of old drivel that everyone who has appeared on these documentaries has or should have an article. No doubt a decent, brave man, and I'm certainly not disparaging his contribution, but certainly does not in any way pass WP:SOLDIER or any other standard of notability and is no more worthy of an article than any one of the other millions of veterans of the Second World War. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing any real notability. Intothat darkness 14:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - most of the coverage is of the form of news articles about the fact that he has talked about his experiences. I'm not getting the right WP:GNG vibe that is needed. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as G11 (by User:MelanieN) (non-admin closure). SwisterTwister talk 22:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OpenCU[edit]

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

The article fails to meet the standard of notability. The subject is a small videoconferencing software project that seeks to replicate the functionality of more popular software that preceded it. Judging from the project's mailing list, less than a dozen developers were involved in the project. There does not seem to be significant or independent coverage of the software; the available sources seem to be other web pages created by the project's developers. Additional, most of the article edits were done by a member of the project team. David@sickmiller.com (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as clear promotion of non-notable product —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quaff distillery[edit]

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

This seems to be a hoax. The events described in the article regarding a strong alcoholic drink brewed by the mutineers on Pitcairn Island are true and confirmed by sources, but none I can find confirm that this drink was called "Quaff"—the only citation given in the article makes no mention whatsoever of Pitcairn, HMS Bounty, etc. Article was created by Textet in December 2013 about an hour after he inserted references to "Quaff" in several Bounty-related articles (see contributions). I suspect this is some kind of joke on the English term "quaff", meaning to imbibe vigorously. In any case the article totally fails WP:VERIFICATION. — Cliftonian (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probably a hoax as the nominator says, but even if this is not 100% certain, my searches found no indication of reliable sources to support this, much less sufficient coverage to establish notability. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Probable hoax. The one footnote does not document what is purported to be documented in the piece. Carrite (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources found. Most likely a hoax. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 21:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Send to the list of hoaxes or, if not a hoax, Delete as failing the general notability guidelines. --TL22 (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
HOAX -- The whole thing is highly improbable. Pitcairn island is one of the most remote in the world and it is barely (if at all) feasible for an organisation based there to have a worldwide impact. That there were murders among the Bounty mutineers (its first settlers) and that some one died by falling from a cliff on Pitcairn Island are both feasible; and these may have been drink related. However relating that to an alleged Quaff distillery seems fanciful. If the distillery exists at all, I would guess that it has invented this as a foundation myth, but this would not be a myth in the technical sense of the word. It is pure fiction, and has no place in WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter—as I wrote at the top the events described such as five mutineers being murdered and one, William McCoy, dying falling from a cliff, are true and confirmed by sources (see the article at Mutiny on the Bounty). Indeed the latter event was probably caused by the alcoholic drink McCoy and Matthew Quintal had managed to distil from a local plant. However I can find no evidence whatsoever that this drink was called "Quaff" and even if it was there was no "distillery". As you conclude this article's subject is pure fiction, despite the veracity of certain events described therein. — Cliftonian (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Challenger by Allan Banford[edit]

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

Contested PROD. No indication of notability for the painting or the painter. bonadea contributions talk 14:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Everymorning talk 15:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As suggested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allan Banford, the subject is not notable with no significant and notable coverage. SwisterTwister talk 19:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA Women's World Cup milestone goals[edit]

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

Random listcruft. I can't see that this is a topic of any notability; the numbers ending in a pair of zeros are essentially a random selection set. PROD removed with a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument citing FIFA World Cup milestone goals, which IMO also should go in the dumper. TheLongTone (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't agree it's a random selection set as it has assigned meaning; scoring the 100th or 500th goal is a "milestone" as opposed to the 337th goal. Just like getting dealt a king and an ace has meaning even though it's just as random as getting a 3 and a 4. As the events are quadrennial, these numbers are not as fluid. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, arbtrary not random. Why not select (eg) prime numbers as the criterion for a selection set. Just as uninteresting.TheLongTone (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as trivia. (And delete FIFA World Cup milestone goals if anyone nominates that, too.) There isn't anything special about the X-hundredth goal in a competition, any more than a list of the 100th, 200th, 300th, etc. Olympic gold medal awarded, or the 100th, 200th, 300th, etc. run scored in the World Series, or the 100th, 200th, 300th, etc. goal in the Stanley Cup playoffs. If getting dealt a king and ace has meaning that a 3 and 4 does not, it's because the player is more likely to win the card game being played with the king and ace, because the rules of that game give them more value, but the 700th goal in tournament history will have no more value to the team that scores it than if it had been the 699th goal or the 701st. Egsan Bacon (talk) 03:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. I added the Men's list to the nomination because everyone !voting delete have mentioned that they want the other list to be deleted and I agree that it is a both or nothing deal. If the women's list is (x), then the men's list is too. What it boils down to is WP:NOTSTAT. Tavix | Talk 16:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, pure OR. Giant Snowman 16:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator I'd agree with User:Tavix, if this article goes the similat article on men's kick the ball should go.TheLongTone (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think if you defined what milestone goals are with citations, the notability of both articles would be clearer and less likely to be included in discussions like these. Hmlarson (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pretty clearly OR. Nothing to indicate notability of this set of goals. mikeman67 (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Society for the Advancement of Sexual Health[edit]

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

Non-notable credential mill. Starburst9 (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards delete simply because there's no solid significant and notable coverage about them with searches here, here and here. Scholar also found some results but simply nothing that is significant and in-depth about this group. SwisterTwister talk 20:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable. — James Cantor (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Stiller's Breast[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. The one reference in the article is broken, and a google search comes up with nothing beyond wikipedia articles and IMDB, which isn't enough. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - Google brings nothing up for me other than IMDB which isn't a reliable source. –Davey2010^Talk 20:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JDDJS (talk) 23:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Rather obscure film with multiple searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) finding nothing aside from one result. I believe the one award isn't enough to save this article. SwisterTwister talk 20:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough reliable sources cover it to meet WP:GNG Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rionne McAvoy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted by AfD. Restored, but does have some extra material which means I declined to speedy it via G4. Bringing here for consideration. I have restored the last version before deletion which can be seen here. I am neutral. Black Kite (talk) 11:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Has done nothing notable in his career and doesn't work for one of the bigger Japanese promotions. Even by Wrestle-1's standard, he's a lower tier performer. The one championship he has held in his career is an obscure Australian title. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 12:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 12:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 12:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I just removed unreliable sources (Cage Match is a no no for BLP claims and Tumblr is a blog host so that's a no no full stop) but even with them I agree with Ribbon. A bit player in Japan and just one tour of his homeland and even then it was just to one show in one state. There are several Australian wrestlers without articles that are more notable than this guy. Curse of Fenric (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
deletion please. Does not meet the standards. MPJ -US 20:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak under criterion G11. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 00:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matt O'Connor (music)[edit]

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

Non notable A&R manager. Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Claims "His projects have sold over one million albums" but they are other's albums, not his. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - non-notable and pure promotion —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This article is an accepted WP:AFC. I don't know why it was accepted. This is an advertisement with only unreliable sources. --Mr. Guye (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Johnson (singer)[edit]

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

Besides one vague uncited mention that a song of hers "was popular on the charts in Turkey" not much else that would satisfy WP:MUSBIO. Note this isn't the same person as the radio producer also from San Diego. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 10:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG as singer - article has been tagged with multiple issues since 2009 —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete - My searches found nothing outstanding and this seems to be another case of an indie musician (and it seems her Allmusic profile may have been removed?). Aside from that, there's not much outside primary links and social media. SwisterTwister talk 20:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close as disruptive. (non-admin closure) —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hindki[edit]

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

there is no tribe or language named hindki in afghanistan Ψιδο μρ.χ (talk) 09:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Folkestone bus station[edit]

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

Not a notable bus station. The sole claim to notability is a pony getting on a bus there, but I don't think that's enough. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK just noticed same user made a bunch of these about village bus stops. Do you mind if I piggy back them onto this AfD? —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can, provided a closing administrator can treat them independently if necessary. I think Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashford Bank Street is from the same source. I'd be hesitant to flat out delete Canterbury Bus Station as that's a significant local landmark (eg: "The tourist group for the cathedral at 11:00 will rendezvous at the bus station") so that one I'd redirect to somewhere in Canterbury. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other non-notable local articles written by same village council person:

Bouverie Place Shopping Centre is a little complicated - that's not a reasonable search term, but it could be renamed Bouverie Place and merge / redirected to Folkestone#Leisure. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a really ordinary shopping center. Built in 2007, so non-historic, and 20 stores, mainly minor stuff. The article is just a listing of stores and then all the various bus routes to get there, which nobody is going to look up on Wikipedia. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete no notability and seems promotional, mentioning nearby stores. It was created by a user with the same name as the town, Lydd-on-Sea, so no doubt works for council. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSD#A7 only applies to people, animals, web content, organisations and events .... not bus stops. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should definitely apply to bus stops. And stop signs. And fire hydrants. :-) —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. None of these are worth more than a line in the article on the relevant town.TheLongTone (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to transport section of town articles without prejudice towards recreation if anything substantial can be found, though doubtful. Alakzi (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per TheLongTone and WP:NOTTRAVEL.Charles (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lot per above - To be honest I thought UK bus stations & shopping centres were kept, Anyway all of these can be added in there respective articles if needed. –Davey2010^Talk 21:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bhind clan[edit]

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

I was unable to verify that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. I found mention of the clan, but no clear evidence of notability from reliable sources. Much of what I found from a Google search was WP mirror sites. Google News etc. brought up nothing at all. Boleyn (talk) 06:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete simply because my searches including at Books only found results for the place Bhind not this tribe, continuing searches found nothing else. SwisterTwister talk 20:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've found nothing of note in sources in years of having this on my watchlist. - Sitush (talk) 13:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1696 Nurmela[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted; or (per NASTRO) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 06:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The second largest member of the Baptistina family was the subject of a study as to whether it was the cause of the K/T impactor,[13] as well as a photometry study.[14] There may be a couple of other sources as well. Praemonitus (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact mentioned by Praemonitus is in the title of one of his sources. Along with those two, here's another lightcurve study [15]. I think that gives it enough breadth of coverage for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn per above. Boleyn (talk) 05:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- For the convenience of other reviewers, you might want to follow WP:WDAFD. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. JohnCD (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1463 Nordenmarkia[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted; or (per NASTRO) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 06:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:DWMP: Agree with D. Eppstein. Unable to establish notability. Praemonitus (talk) 02:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. JohnCD (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1367 Nongoma[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted; or (per NASTRO) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 06:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:DWMP: there's a mention of it being s slow rotator,[16] but not much else. Unable to establish notability. Praemonitus (talk) 02:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Archives Portal Europe Network of Excellence Project[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline." It was deprodded by User:Lcastrillo (creator) with no rationale. This badly written, government-PR like entry, with no references outside self-refs, should not be in an encyclopedia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional. It makes no sense that they created an article about the project's framework but no article about the project itself, Archives Portal Europe. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm wondering if it was created as a test? It doesn't have any justification and appears to be ported from intraoffice documents. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I didn't see this before: Talk:Archives Portal Europe Network of Excellence Project. The creator there talks in bureaucratese and admits "I am working for WP7 and this page is a part of our dissemination tasks." So, WP:COI too. We are not a place for "dissemination". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Kaczynski[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:PatGallacher (creator) with the following rationale "as had significant coverage". I disagree: few minor mentions in minor media outlets; he is notable per WP:ONEVENT, already an old and forgotten story. Not enough to pass GNG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep had significant coverage. PatGallacher (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @PatGallacher: Saying so does not make it so. You have to show it to us, and so far you failed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As an event, his arrest is attested by RT and a single story in a British newspaper that doesn't corroborate the article's text. The other sources are primary, or at least not independent, and none of them are about the subject of the entry. Therefore, we have a speculative Wikipedia article that fails notability on the basis of lack of verification and EVENT. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- A left wing activist who interferes in another country'sa politics and gets locked up for his efforts. Hardly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some of the comments above seem a bit more dismissive than the circumstances warrant. The Daily Sabah piece cited in the article, for instance, certainly seems to be secondary, fairly substantial and about the subject - and I suspect that the same would apply to this, from The Times, if I could see behind the paywall. And left-wing activists who get arrested are notable if there is enough coverage from reliable sources, assuming that the coverage continues. So far as I can see, there was in fact a lot of press coverage in Turkish, quite a bit of it (so far as I can judge, not reading Turkish) looking reliable, at the time of the arrest, and there is still some continuing Turkish coverage - but having said that, without knowing Turkish, there is no way for me to judge whether this would even get close to taking the subject past the WP:ONEEVENT hurdle. PWilkinson (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raffi Ferreira (Soccer Player)[edit]

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

Non-notable soccer player, fails WP:NCOLLATH. After I BLPPROD'ed the article original creator added two sources with very minimal mentions from a primary source. Does not meet the threshold for "significant coverage" required by WP:GNG. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails both WP:NCOLLATH and WP:FOOTY. Out of the three sources, two are ~~self-published~~ published by the college itself, and the third merely copies the first. Not to mention the promotional tone. Refined searches in Google return but a few hundred links to various social networks. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 03:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, didn't notice that 3rd source due to the poor formatting, but yeah, still doesn't resolve the notability issues. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject fails notability, and the article is without support. It's a mudpie of text, too. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. Also fails WP:NCOLLATH, awards not at a high enough level. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Childs Farm[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " Created by SPA, it was deprodded by User: Willie d troudour (<10 edits total) who left the following comment at it's talk: "This article meets the Wikipedia:General notability guideline because of multiple independent third party publications discussing the subject on the page and some publications are not listed.". No specifics examples where given, and outside [17], all I see is mentions in passing or coverage in niche publications/press releases/PR media/etc. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think it just barely meets GNG, with profiles on the company, its products and on her (since it's basically about how she created the company) [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25] —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's review:
  - [26] coverage of innovative advertising by major British newspaper, The Telegraph
  - article about company winning an award by Junior Magazine (magazine). The article seems like a PR piece, it's short, and full of marketing speak ("an award-winning and affordable collection of ", "the first, and only, baby & children’s skincare range to make the following claims: dermatologically & paediatrician tested and approved and suitable for newborns & upwards", etc.) . The magazine describes itself as a " glossy, family lifestyle website" that went out of print in 2013 but maintains an online presence. By 2014, when it covered CF, it was only an online portal. Seems like a niche, non-RS source, and written like a PR/marketing/ad piece.
  - [27] a companion to the above, JM interviews DF founder. Outside being regional/niche, it is is also not about the company, but it's founder, and mentions the company only in passing.
  - [28] a profile of the company founder in a regional UK portal (Hampshire Life, www.hampshire-life.co.uk). Outside being regional/niche, it is is also not about the company, but it's founder, and mentions the company only in passing.
  - [29] An ad for the products, in the form of an "article", appearing in "THE WIDEST DISTRIBUTED COMPLIMENTARY LIFESTYLE MAGAZINE IN SUSSEX". Another niche (distributed "throughout the county"), PR coverage, an ad masquerading for an article.
  - [30] Seems like a Czech equivalent of those British PR niche pieces. In fact, I think it's a shop.
  - [31] Another PR "buy this product". It's an ad for a single product, "Childs Farm Top-To-Toe Cleaning Kit, £9.95 www.childsfarm.com", in the form of profile of favorite products selected for the British edition of the Vogue_(magazine). It does not discuss the company, it is just fawning over one of their products.
  - [32] Similar coverage, a paragraph inviting people to buy "Bath and hair products for kids, from £4.69, from Childs Farm". Published in a blog/lifestyle section of a major British newspaper, The Guardian, but of dubious reliability. Anyway, it's coverage of the company's product, not the company.
- So, User:Wikimandia, I'd appreciate if you'd tell me how those sources pass GNG/Company notability for independent, major (non-niche, non-regional, non-passing) coverage. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because I don't agree with your assessment of these refs secretly being ads, PR pieces, blah blah blah. The Q&As with her are primarily about the company and how it got started, and you might want to head on over to WP:CORP because your standard requiring "major (non-niche, non-regional)" sources is not in the guideline at all, and, in fact, appears to be something you've invented to entertain us. The requirement for sources are that they be reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product. There is nothing that says coverage in a niche publication is not acceptable (especially if you have niche product, duh!); nor that local or regional publications cannot count as a reliable source. Per WP:AUD, you can't have an article with only local sources, but that's not the case with this article. So that's how I say these sources pass GNG. Also the Czech one is not a store but a women's portal and magazine; they sell a few products but they do not sell Childs Farm products. Hopefully that satisfies your questions. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I could argue that you are confusing GNG and CORP, but let's not split words or guidelines. And yes, I should have said clearly non-RS, rather than niche. Now, please explain which references here satisfy, in your view, our policies. "This article satisfies WP:CORP criteria...". But if you think it does because it has coverage in reliable sources, we have to discuss the said sources. You haven't' so far, outside of arguing that the interview with the CEO is not passing coverage. Even if I agree (and I am not sure I do), I do not believe that Junior Magazine (magazine) is reliable; it seems WP:QUESTIONABLE ("promotional in nature"). Ditto for all other sources here; they seem to fail RS. Because, in simple terms, they are PR spam. Look at those publications. They are never critical of the products they cover; they get paid to produce article-like ads. The Sussex magazine is even given away for free (and don't tell me you think the companies which front the funds do so without expecting a quid pro quo in exchange). Let me repeat: having reviewed the sources, I find them unreliable (poor fact checking, likely COI in the form of positive, paid-for coverage), and focusing on the company in passing (even you haven't presented any in-depth sources about it, outside the PR-like piece, not too long btw, in the form of [33]). Wikipedia is not Yellow Pages. This company hasn't attracted any serious coverage (it paid for some niche PR article-likes features). And short coverage of the company's marketing campaign in a reliable newspaper does not change the situation. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article really reads like an ad. The copy is full of press-release material. The stand-out material for me is the production company credit, but the article only tosses that in as an after thought. The article wants, I think, to sell shampoo, and not inform a reader. That's bad. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as promotional/advertising: The theoretical approach to deletion debates where one keeps if the subject could be discussed really abuts reality here, because we wouldn't keep an ad. Advertising is a deletion criterion, and this article is advertising. As I noted above, the most notable aspects of the company are not discussed and the product line up and wonderful child-friendly motives are. Hithladaeus (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't host advertisements even if what is being advertised is notable. Thincat (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertisement. I looked at many of the references - The Junior Magazine is put out by a marketing firm. The Daily Mail article (DM is a RS) is just a mention. #10 is a PR firm. #11 "award" is one of those "you pay to win" awards. #16 is a two-person site/blog. etc etc LaMona (talk) 20:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael David Krueger[edit]

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

Poorly referenced BLP. I dream of horses (T) @ 17:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added both primary and secondary sources (like the church biography). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.220.142 (talk) 03:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The five offered sources are mighty flaky: two are commercial promotions (one for a CD recording, the other a concert announcement), and the remaining three (including that "church biography") are plainly written by the subject of the article—including a resumé and a personal photo on a blog. An attempt to find better sources via the template links turned up only a news item for a different person with the same name, who was charged in a hit-and-run in California. I see nothing supporting notability at all.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. References fail to meet WP:ARTIST: passing coverage, self-published sources, etc. Google News has "No results found for "Michael David Krueger". Not discussed in books, nor academic articles. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The biographical subject is an artist, but the article's claim to notability is as a business, but there aren't independent reliable sources attesting sufficient notability on either score at this time. I'm sure he's a talented person, but probably not in need of an encyclopedia article. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unfortunately, as shown with the current sources, there aren't any that are significant and coverage and my searches found nothing to fit this. SwisterTwister talk 20:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chakradhar Swami[edit]

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

First of all, this article is not very easy to understand and searches to the best of my ability found nothing good. It appears both Marathi and Polish Wikis have what appear to be references but I'm not a speaker of either language so I'm not sure how good those sources are or if they're relevant at all. My concerns are the understandability and no apparent sources to support this, at least at English Wikipedia. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have identified additional sources on this personage. I also have a sense there are even more sources in Maratha and maybe Hindi, but have no knowledge of either language. A google search showed echos of such sources. We need much more work, especially on the movment that he is said to have founded. This movement still exists today, or at least existed past the founding of the current government in India in the 1940s. The article being hard to understand is not reason for deletion, but inprovement.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Johnpacklambert - unfortunately there is no Google translate for Maratha, but searching for his name brings up books and other hits. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Polish sources appear reliable (academic works, etc.). If he is mentioned in them, he is likely notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ Shad Innet (talk) 08:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC) There are only Polish links, and all of them to the books, which are hard to find and check. There is no English sources, strangely.[reply]

Comment – @Shad Innet: Per WP:GNG and WP:NOENG, sources do not have to be in English to establish notability or to verify content in articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:23, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I agree Shad Innet (talk) 10:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but needs careful rewriting. This looks like the case of someone who is obviously notable by any reasonable reckoning, but where it may be very difficult to disentangle legend from history. He seems to be generally recognised as the effective founder of the Mahanubhava sect, with one of its sacred texts, Leela Charitra (or, apparently more usually these days, Lilacharitra), being largely a purported account of his life and thought - and one of the founding classics of Marathi literature. One problem that this gives is that most accounts of Chakradhar are either in relation to Lilacharitra as literature or to Mahanubhav thought (which seems to have been in many ways revolutionary, promoting both caste and gender equality) and, where they give accounts of his life, may not be fully separating out historical and legendary elements (this, for instance). By the way, "Swami" is an honorific and not always used - it may be easier to find sources without it(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). PWilkinson (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Harrison (singer)[edit]

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

Is she really notable? I think no; fails WP:MUSBIO. A singer with only 2-3 years of activity, who ”found success covering numerous songs on YouTube” it's not very impressive. There are thousands of such a ”singers” around the world. She has only 4 singles (two in 2015 and two in 2012) and one album, no one of them entered in charts. She's a promising singer, but at this moment most probbaly she is not enough notable for an article. XXN, 18:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per WP:TOOSOON. Quis separabit? 01:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing how she passes WP:MUSICBIO with the refs present. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TOOSOON - two sentences about famous people she's met does not help her case either. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In Generation Like, we get weird things. Meeting Perez Hilton is more of a path to commercial success than impressing a CBS A&R woman or man for the world of Youtub/ITuns. However, we're not there yet. We lag behind the commercial world and should lag behind it as a tertiary source of information. Not notable by the music guidelines. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Too soon IMHO. –Davey2010^Talk 21:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As evident with the current sources and my searches, there aren't any significant and notable ones. SwisterTwister talk 20:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, no prejudice against recreation if stronger notability claims have been found--Ymblanter (talk) 07:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Christopher (politician Maryland)[edit]

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

Unelected politician failing WP:POLITICIAN Winner 42 Talk to me! 18:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the subject is a candidate and the article doesn't establish any other notability. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:GNG as an unelected politician. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - really unfortunate that he has that name, which makes sources harder to find, but it seems is currently running again, and also I am thinking he may qualify based on his military awards. I know the United Nations Medal is fairly common but unsure about how often some of the others are given. He has a pretty impressive resume - obviously that bio there is very promotional but I am assuming the basic facts are true. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi All. I am working diligently to include Mr. Christopher's notable contributions to his Wikipedia page. He has been a chief of staff in the Department of Interior and a Senior Advisor to former Senator Hillary Clinton. This is a work in progress and I am new as user. I understand the importance of maintaining standards and the reliability of data on Wikipedia. I will also continue to add citations, in compliance with Wikipedia requirements, over the coming days. Thanks in advance for your understanding and patience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TWLcomm--TWLcomm (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC) (talk--71.178.206.115 (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC) • contribs) 15:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per POLITICIAN and WP:SOLDIER. (I have no idea what "Commanding Officer in Europe" means, but it's obviously not the Commanding Officer, not if he was just a lt. col.) Subject to change if political/government positions are sourced and notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and sandbox: What would be necessary is independent reliable source coverage of him as himself. That's lacking at this time. Incidentally, on the article name it might be better as Warren Christopher (Maryland politician) or "Warren Christopher (b. 19--)" and then, if the article made, a disambiguation at Warren Christopher. The encyclopedia can handle the confusion, but the current name is a bit clunky, and it will only work if its subject remains local. I recommend the author putting the article in his or her user space and continuing to work on it. When there are RS articles on the subject, it can then be moved over. Hithladaeus (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete or move to userspace he ran for office in 2014, and did not win. Being a Lt. Col. ret. is not notable, unless the significant sourcing upholds notability. If User:TWLcomm, User:Jaorquina or someone else wants to take it to user space, source it and then submit it - I'm good with that.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unelected candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, and nothing else in this article is written substantively enough or sourced well enough to claim that he gets over some other notability rule instead of WP:NPOL. Even the insufficient number of sources that are here are all unreliable ones that cannot support a person's notability under WP:GNG — every last one of them is primary, user-generated or bloggy. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if a stronger notability claim and better sourcing come to pass. Bearcat (talk) 01:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. But with the little participation, no prejudice to speedy renomination. Davewild (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chanidapa Pongsilpipat[edit]

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

Actress with questionable notability-all of the pages seem to be fan pages for her. Wgolf (talk) 18:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Currently, I am expanding the content of the article. References will be added in the process. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not going to be of much use here because I'm not a Thai speaker but the article has somewhat improved now with the sources added by the user above and my English sources found nothing and she has no IMDb page so it's possible much of it is going to be Thai. Although I have to say, she's hasn't had that many movies over the years so I'm not sure how much attention she has gotten in Thailand. SwisterTwister talk 01:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Tsemberis[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited. All sources are about org, not person Gaijin42 (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep. Yes , notability is not inherited, but it this case Tsemberis is clearly a primary item of notability here. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. Created by a "drive-by" newcomer editor, the article requires attention of an experienced wikipedian, but a quick google search clearly shows that sources are plenty. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - As the "drive-by" newcomer, I apologize. I have actually been a wikipedia editor for over a decade, but it has been a long time and I am out of practice. I have been meaning to add the Washington Post article link and to convert the remaining sources into Wikipedia's suggested formats, but have not had time to do so. Than you for adding the article link. If you can refer me to tools that will help me efficiently convert the references I added into wikipedia links that would be terrific. Ms Chevrolet
    - See Talk:Sam Tsemberis for some advise. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per Staszek Lem —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has a profile in Carlos W. Pratt; Kenneth J. Gill; Nora M. Barrett (6 October 2006). Psychiatric Rehabilitation. Academic Press. p. 327. ISBN 978-0-08-046590-6. ((cite book)): Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help), non-trivial mentions in several books. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article is awful. Most of it is about "Housing First," which would present a good argument for "Redirect." The text of the argument -- ostensibly a biographical article, mind you -- never identifies the subject's place of birth or current residence. Furthermore, it talks about "then" he does this and "then" that, and he always does it "here." Here? Really? That's fantastic! This homelessness cure is here? I'll remember that when my employer folds, because surely "here" means here. It doesn't mean Washington, D.C., does it? I love how people do independent research, see that a person is discussed, and then say "keep," as if that were the end. This article isn't about the person, and it doesn't inform a reader. Hithladaeus (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There is WP:SUMMARY guideline which addresses the concern of unbalanced/duplicated text content. Yes, please remember him when your employer folds, your wife divorces you, your children forget you, you lose your right arm, so that you become a chronic alcoholic and a dirty tramp. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I can't find anything about him that is really about him, not the method he has put into place to house the homeless. The WaPo article is the closest thing to being about him, but it says little about him as a person. Until more biographical information comes along, a stand-alone article on him hasn't got enough content to justify it. There is no reason why a bio article might not be suitable in the future. LaMona (talk) 20:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there's this WaPo piece, and seemingly non-trivial mentions here and here. They are not exclusively interested in the housing project; they consider him as a person, and how his background impacts his work; they see him as notable besides his involvement in the project. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep also. I am agree with Staszek Lem Shad Innet (talk) 10:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Telalim[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by creator, User:Elena Elk, with the following comment "deleting "proposal deletion" and "orphan". Reason: I think that it is enough editing articles. Also added: Links to external sources, cross-references to other sections of Wikipedia, other minor edits." I am afraid I am still not convinved by the refs present; the ones I can read seem to mention him in passing, or be not very reliable (some minor galleries selling his art, a site on tripod, etc.). If any sources are reliable and discuss him in depth, please list them here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment User:Elena Elk I am the author of this article and I give my arguments in more expanded form.

The artist in question - Alexander Telalim - was born in Ukraine, now living in Bulgaria. The main evidence of its importance published in Bulgarian, Russian and Ukrainian languages (given in descending order).
Assuming that such references to the English part of Wikipedia is not too important and understandable to the reader, I did not include them. It certainly was my mistake, for which I apologize and ask opponents to take into account the factor of my small experience in this matter. It was my first article for the English Wikipedia. Thanks to the just remark of Piotrus, it has allowed me to improve the text.

Now about the links, which were included.
1. Two link to site of artist. One link is a page with biography, second - to main page. The main page is empty, it really bad link, but I seems that I would put it as a link to artist website. The last of them can be delete.
2. A group of links from USA galleries. I selected the links to Gallery at the Consulate, because it gives one a some official status also. The exhibition at The Ukrainian National Museum in USA and an article about this exibition is a examples of so links. Of course, modern gallery is often carried out with the sale, so finding exactly an impartial source, such as the British Museum, it would be difficult.
Another link with short biography of artist was used as English text from source other than the author's site.
3. Then three links to known private galleries in Bulgaria and Russia were used as a links satisfying the both parameters: English text and famous modern gallery in these countries.
4. Next 6 links are a references to the radio and television programs, as well as articles in the official media in Bulgaria, which were dedicated to the artist Alexander Telalim. I selected the only official state television and radio channels in Bulgaria (eg "Bulgarian National Radio" or "National Bulgarian TV"), as their significance seems to me a priority.
Unfortunately, the Internet in Ukraine was a very weak during youth Alexander Telalim. Good links are hard to find now and there are no English texts, so I not used those ones. But it's is may be done easily, if necessary.
5. In Eastern Europe there is another indication of the importance of artists - is the inclusion of the so-called "National Union of Artists." Selection to pass is fairly strict rules and Alexander Telalim has long been a member of the Bulgarian Union of Artists. (This is indicated).
6. Then I found link to one of the more significant exhibitions. It was The "Masters of Watercolours" in St. Petersburg in 2015 (with a Exibition participants catalogue).
7. Artist has a more than 60 solo exhibitions around the world, including the world-famous galleries in the US, EU and Japan. It was another argument, which allowed me to believe his fame enough for inclusion in Wikipedia.
(added) 8.The last links are the russian articles from different sites

Finally, if there are suspicions of my personal interest, I would like to just dismiss them. I am interested in South Russian school of art, the center of which is located in Odessa (modern Ukraine). I intend to write a series of articles about her artists, but the work is progressing too slow because of my employment elsewhere.
Not more than a few days ago, I posted an article about the Grekov Odessa Art school, today or tomorrow I will write about another representative of this school, the artist Yuri Salko, who became famous as a new talent in the field of icons in the Byzantine style.
I understand that the "myself" link is not a good argument for Wikipedia, but please note that my native language - Russian, Bulgarian and Ukrainian, so I can find information about these people in short order.
If my links are not insufficient, I will put all its my forces to find more serious, however, I would like to understand what could be more serious than the government media conducted an interviews, lasting more than an hour? If this is not proof of the popularity and significance, what is the evidence?

P.S. I watched many articles about the artists from Eastern Europe and Russia, and I find that the more links there are simply not available or unreliable. I would like to understand why this article is motivated by a desire to remove it? As a rule, if the article does not have reliable information, it is asked to provide. However, the repeated removal requirement is puzzling, and I would like to understand the reason for such a drastic requirement? Elena Elk (talk) 04:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see several refs that are not in passing, including [34] and [35] with Bulgarian National Radio; interviews [36], [37], lengthy profile/appearance on Bulgarian television program [38], and exhibition at the Ukrainian National Museum [39]. I don't know if there are more out there; these are the ones already listed on the article, but not mentioned in your summary of sources when you created this AfD. I'm also curious why this article should be deleted. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More refs - [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45] —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Google hits are not enough. Which of those are not WP:QUESTIONABLE? National Radio seems best, but problematic; it wasn't a program about him by some scholars or critics; those were interviews with him. As such, those have problems with WP:RS: he is a primary source about himself, after all. One could argue that the mere fact of being invited establishes notability, but this is, as far as I know, not supported by policy, and I an hesitant to support it (the interviews where, btw, how long? 1 minute? Half an hour?). All other unreliable sources aside (galleries selling or otherwise benefiting from his works are not independent sources; just like book publishers/bookstores cannot be sufficient sources for a book's notability). Granted, WP:ARTIST does state that if his work " has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition", but then we need to discuss what is a significant exhibition (I'd say one that is notable, i.e. has attracted major coverage, which is not what I see for the exhibitions listed in this article). Finally, the claim that membership in Union of Bulgarian Artists (an article of dubious notability itself as written, through a quick search shows it to be notable otherwise) is anything extra-ordinary needs to be backed up with sources. Is this a reputable organizations with selective membership? I am not seeing it; and as such I am not ready to accept the fact that membership in it conveys notability. In the end, keep in mind not all artists are notable, and nothing I see here suggests to me that this person is ready to be in an encyclopedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dude these are not "Google hits" but coverage of him and not a single one is from a gallery either, so I really don't what you're talking about. I can understand not everybody can read Cyrillic but you can at least bother to use Google Translate. The only one that is not from an independent news source is this one [46] from the City of Chicago's Sister Cities partnership website (as Kyiv is a sister city), and that's an announcement from the National Museum of Ukraine. And it's even in English. I have never read anywhere or heard anyone suggest that a Q&A or an interview (written or live) does not count as coverage toward GNG. A Q&A done with a RS is not considered a primary source except for the purpose of specific content/claim that would need to be subject to additional verification (such as claim of record company profits etc). You state merely being invited to be featured in an interview with a RS does not count toward GNG as this is "not supported by policy." ORLY? What policy is that? Because it's not in any Wikipedia policy, and I'm sorry to say I don't recognize WP:THINGSPIOTRIMAGINES as policy :-( Considering Q&A format interviews are very common and are frequently referenced, surely this specific rule you think exists would be in the guideline, somewhere.... And by "the interviews where" do you mean where can you find the radio interview??? Instructions: 1) open your eyes (please do not skip this step) 2) go to the page [[47]] 3) look at the page (also important) 4) click the triangle PLAY button on the big media player on the page. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The duration of the interview in these sources varies from half an hour to two hours.

On membership in the Union of Artists of Bulgaria written here:
http://www.sbhart.com/bg/members/letter/%D0%A2/p/20#letter

or here: http://www.sbhart.com/en/members/letter/T/p/20#letter

I can to agree that this source may be given also, but I did not see that in other articles about the artists of Eastern Europe.

The book, which was cited in the references, not just a result of publication of his works, but the catalog of one of the most famous exhibition of masters of watercolors in the world. In my opinion, is really proof of the author's fame. Beginners or unknown masters there just are not included.

In some cases I cite and link to the both: exhibition and reviews. I described it in detail above. I can increase the number of some links to 10-20 pieces, but I have to take reviews in Bulgarian, Ukrainian and Russian languages, which is not too good for the English Wikipedia.

With all due respect to the search engines, especially Google, I want to note that this is not the best argument for the encyclopedia, also should take into account that the search should be conducted in the national languages and national offices of Google.

It seems a not serious argument that you do not know about the complexity of admission to the National Artists Union in Eastern Europe. If you do not have this information, it can be read anywhere, in Google or Wikipedia, or on cite http://www.sbhart.com/en, or about history of art at former socialist countries.

I will summarize. I put links to long radio and TV shows with the artist, and in the presence of Bulgarian critics and art historians. I put links and list important exhibitions outside Bulgaria.

I bring proof of adoption of the selective union of artists.

I quote the article, which tells about the artist in large galleries.

I cite references to articles published on the Internet, completely dedicated to the work of the artist.

What do I need more?

Which exhibition?

If I give you a long list of links to reviews on the Bulgarian or Russian, it will be the argument of fame?

The number of personal exhibitions is one of the most important arguments the significance of the artist. I chose of Telalim first because it is very large. Why is it that no argument? Articles is appearing in each(!) exibition in the national languages.

Finally, I repeat my question - why require removal article, but not correction?

Elena Elk (talk) 07:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Elk, ne volnyites ponaprasnu, prime4aniya bolee 4em dostato4no! on 4oknuty 😁 —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Elena Elk (talk) 09:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets the notability guidelines for artists. Given the oddity of the prose in the article, I can understand why it was initially listed, but the references added show that the artist is notable. I will at least clean the English. (I'm not going to do much or anything about its claims, though, as all my artists have been dead a few hundred years.) Hithladaeus (talk) 12:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Initially, the article may be not contain a number of links, but now everything is in order. My little search in the Bulgarian network shows popularity of the artist adequately.

Shad Innet (talk) 08:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the only reliable source in the article is Bulgarian National Radion, and, as Piotrus states, even this source is problematic.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This source is not problematic, as is the direct link to it. In addition, there are links to Bulgarian television. Shad Innet (talk) 08:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This ^[1], for example, the TV program of 55 minutes about the artist and his works by the Bulgarian state television.

Comment. This is likely an alt account of Elena Elk, registered on 2 June.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do not have any relation to this account Shad Innet (talk) 09:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. May be you are a different account Piotrus? )) I think so due to nobody spoke against article in this discussions a whole week. Piotrus offers all the time to the deletion of most pages in this poorly versed in the link. No?

I will not deny that I am know the newcomer Elena Elk, and even working in the same place, but we are different people.

It's not my nick. Elena Elk (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a dozen references to an interview with the artist, and reviews of his work. In the list are Bulgaria TV (two channels) and TV of Ukraine, some of the local channels in Chicago (I don't know this channel). Still not enough? Shad Innet (talk) 09:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Shad Innet (talk) 10:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC) You know, this is not my style, but I shall explain. I do not understand why Piotrus demanded the delete of the article. If we look at the editing history, we can see that the first author put only English links. This is a fairly common mistake for beginners who are trying to extend the non-English culture in the English Wikipedia.[reply]

And I think our task, my task - to support these people and help them correct their mistakes. We will gain new good editor and a lot of new pages in the future.
Instead of Piotrus put the page for deletion without seeing the previous changes.
Мандичка well although somewhat ill qualified. He said all the items and added a lot of links (thanks, some of them I put in the article today).
Among the options - an interview with state television channels in Ukraine and Bulgaria are probably small private channel in Chicago. Several references to the broadcast. All of them are quite a long period, which is already talking about the significance of the artist.
If you look at the headlines of articles, we see that the authors have no doubt of the importance of the artist. The extent that Izmail is the title "us goes a famous artist", for example. Note one that Izmail - it is Ukraine but Alexander Telalim lives in Bulgaria.
In my opinion, this article is already an overabundance of significant links, although I personally would link them with text or otherwise distributed, but this is a big job.
Instead of the conversation is continued about the removal and furthermore starts transition to the individual. I work together with Elena at the same institute. Those interested can see the link to our place of work https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budker_Institute_of_Nuclear_Physics
We have dozens of people write articles for Wikipedia, and I would be a shame to lose another quite good author. By the way, the alternate nickname Elena is widely known, it is right in her account - is Элена Элк, that means the same thing, but is written in Cyrillic.
I do not regret the author's call - she does not need it. But look closely enough links to understand that they have too much rather than "not enough." I note that this criticism does not even look.
DixiShad Innet (talk) 10:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Mica[edit]

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

No real indication of notability as defined by WP:MUSBIO or WP:BIO; passing mention in a tabloid article hardly rises to the standards set by those policies.

And if he really did win the award the article claims he won — well, some fifteen awards are handed out annually at the Romanian Music Awards, and while I can see "best album" meeting the "major music award" standard of WP:MUSBIO point 8, I have a harder time seeing "best new act" in the same category. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable refs that I can see. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he had a song place on Romania's charts so qualifies per WP:MUSICBIO —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an unreferenced claim, however. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: The "contract" he was under was with a company whose name is identical to a vanity music service in the rest of the world. The article says "it peaked on the charts," but what charts? Was this the downloads chart, the sales chart, the radio play chart? The only potentially verifiable fact is in a pudding of promotion and puffery. It gets very hard to trust a vague potential fact when it swims in a sea of undoubted boosterism. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can someone fluent in Romanian check [48] and [49]. Looks like they might show notability, cannot find claim they charted in Romania though. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the first link, from Adevărul, is certainly reliable, but not especially edifying. It talks about Cătălin Botezatu handing out an award and being distracted by a blonde. And, yes, at the end it does mention in passing that the award in question was given to Mica. As to the second link, I'm a bit skeptical about the reliability of yabbmusic.ro. In any event, the article deals with a certain Eli launching a video clip in which Mica also participates; the only in-depth mention of Mica is a quote by Eli: "I'm a friend of Alex's, we've known each other for a very long time because we're from the same city", etc, etc. Given that Eli himself doesn't seem notable, I don't see this one as a meaningful indication of notability either. - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so they were giving out an award, not receiving one? If they'd been receiving a reward for best act, then keep, but as not, then Delete. Unless of course someone can verify he reached the Romanian charts. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Clearly one of the biggest successes in recent Romanian pop music. The hit "Dalinda" was one of the biggest Romanian hits in 2012. The music video also attracted more than 21 million views, very respectable for a Romanian-language song. I have added many references as well to article since it was nominated for deletion. His most recent hit as a featured artist in Eli's "Nu mai cred in tine" is on the same track and has attracted around 7 milllion views in a brief 2 months. The article can be trimmed off of unnecessary detail, but I don't know what is the interest of English Wikipedia in deleting many such artists who are so notable in their own countries as if they are undeserving of international attention. I know language may be a hurdle for colleagues with no knowledge of languages, but I think non-English language artists are as deserving as English language artists for coverage, although references are much harder to analyze. werldwayd (talk) 08:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Werldwayd: Can you actually find reliable sources that they charted in Romania? Because if they did, then they should be kept, but I couldn't find any sources for it. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In answer, see a snapshot of the Romanian chart where "Dalinda" is at number 10 on week April 30 – May 6 2012 http://romanianchart.blogspot.ca/2012/05/romanian-chart-40-edition-182012.html The song also charted in Bulgaria peaking at number 13 See: http://top40-charts.com/song.php?sid=33706 werldwayd (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Switch to Keep per above, passes WP:NMUSIC. I added these sources to the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- werldwayd, if this guy were that prominent as your hyperbolic "clearly one of the biggest successes in recent Romanian pop music" suggests, he'd be the subject of "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician [himself]". He isn't; thus far, all you've been able to adduce is a blog post, a tabloid article and a piece of cruft. So let's tone down the rhetoric a bit: he's (probably) had one mildly successful song, and that's it.
- Joseph2302, do note the wording of WP:MUSICBIO: passing the criteria indicates the subject may be notable. Strictly speaking, you could argue he is, based on having had one song in the top 20. Myself, I tend to believe a biographical article should have at least some indication of coverage in "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician". Given that such coverage is glaringly lacking, I still question the viability of the article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the obvious significance tests - known among people in other countries.

http://newmuz.net/5396-alex-mica-dalinda.html I will translate the text from site (rus):

"And again on the DFM Radio Romania charges! This time, the news hit song musical prodigy, a composer from Romania Alex Mick (Alex Mica). This track is called Dalinda."

This is not a significant link, right. The author has to find meaningful. But I am against the removal of the singer, which even I know, despite the fact that nobody heard from Romania. Shad Innet (talk) 10:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this is not an appropriate list. Davewild (talk) 06:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of operating systems for children[edit]

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

This list is crafted based on a set of arbitrary criteria with no citations on what should qualify as an operating system for children, thus failing to meet WP:LISTN L Faraone 00:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete invented info/original research/unreferenced/no notability and possibly promo - there is no main article about operating systems for children. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is precedent for lists of software/products, but the qualification for them is almost always that they pass notability GNG enough to merit an article and/or that they've received enough coverage to at least warrant being mentioned on the list. This specific list seems to set its own rules for inclusion, one of which is that it is "actively maintained & supported." This has never been something that would disqualify something from a list on Wikipedia and it's quite common for lists to include software that is no longer maintained or supported. That aside, we have to look at whether or not there's really anything here that would warrant a list. Offhand I'm not seeing anything and the qualifications for inclusion seem to be fairly loose, given that Leapster is on the list. I suppose that since it does have an OS and it's aimed towards children it could technically belong on the list, but I don't know that it's really an OS in the same way that some of the others (like Edubuntu) are OS systems. This gives off the impression that the only two real qualifications for the list is that the product has to be aimed at children and that it has to be able to run electronically. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If other articles like this exist, then they're bad ideas, too. The title promises a "comparison" -- by what criterion? There are loads of assumptions in any "comparison." For example, I might want to know about the load time of each, or the nation of origin, or how many left handed brunettes worked on each. There is an include/exclude criterion that is arbitrary, as @Tokyogirl79 points out, but there are even more silent criteria in the points of comparison. This matters because the most vital silence is "comparison to determine which is best" is implied. The usefulness of this article would be as a consumer guide, and we're not in any position to be that. If it doesn't go to the consumer guide form, it becomes undigested information in a table. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think this is a good idea for an article, but I did locate two sources: this article from PC World and this article from Network World. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is no consensus on whether the subject of the article is notable independent of his son. Davewild (talk) 06:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Adams, Sr.[edit]

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

Delete or merge with Gerry Adams; obviously non-notable in own right. Only notable as father of Gerry Adams. Quis separabit? 00:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The claim to notability would be as an important figure in the PIRA in his own right. The Guardian describes him as "important in the emergence of the Provisional IRA in 1970" as well as a "seminal" influence on his son's politics.[50] The Times ("Militant Irish republican who helped to mould the Provisional IRA and influenced his son’s hard line")[51] and (UK) Independent[52] also carried obituaries though the latter doesn't give him much importance except through his son. Colapeninsula (talk) 09:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"as well as a "seminal" influence on his son's politics." -- sorry but notability is not inherited -- in either direction. Quis separabit? 22:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Independent also carried obituaries though the latter doesn't give him much importance except through his son". Quis separabit? 22:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an influence on the political thinking of an important political figure, that seems to be a claim to notability, whether or not he's your son. I'm also not sure why you're quoting random bits from my reply; it looks a bit aggressive, or at best psittacine. Colapeninsula (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am sure Adams Sr was a veritable Machiavelli. As for the quotes, hey, I am just trying to bolster my argument using street alley tabloid tactics. Now that you mention it, I do suffer from psittacinism. Yours, Quis separabit? 12:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough independent coverage to justify the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously due to significant coverage. Those claiming "notability is not inherited" do not understand the essay they are quoting. Le petit fromage (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given the Guardian and Times descriptions and indications of his role in the development of the Provisional IRA. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If a major newspaper claims "was important in the emergence of the Provisional IRA in 1970", it seems sufficient. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not "significant coverage" about the subject, that's one journalist making a throwaway statement that a person played a significant role. Carrite (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Guardian has coverage, but there are consistent references to his role these days. I know that BBC World Service, the last time it talked about Gerry Adams (that I heard), talked about his father's having been involved in the PIRA. (I.e. if I know he was active in PIRA, then there's coverage, because I don't tune in on that history.) Hithladaeus (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others as WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Run of the mill Provisional IRA militant with a famous son, in the press only for family sexual abuse charges, which are only deemed newsworthy because of the son. NOTINHERITED. Carrite (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- He strikes me as rather ordinary IRA activist, whose main significance is having a notable son. Notability is not inherited. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 06:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dewey Pegno & Kramarsky LLP[edit]

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

It seems like a lot of these articles are not RS. Lots of puffery here, not sure a law firm of 16 people should be here, especially with the lack of adequate sourcing. Looks like this was PRODed before, so best to nominate to get a better discussion. Jeremy112233 ^{(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?)} 00:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PROD happened here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dewey_Pegno_and_Kramarsky_LLP&action=edit&redlink=1

Delete. Based on what I've found so far, I don't think this small firm has the significant coverage, or rises to the significance, we generally expect for law firms to get their own articles here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this type of an article is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "Litigation boutique" is a somewhat recent term of art, and it almost guarantees a lack of notability, as the point to such firms is that they try to stay somewhat small. They aim for high talent, but they're not big on getting a profile in independent press. Lacks notability from independent coverage, but that's nearly guaranteed. That doesn't mean it's not high profile in the world of NYC litigators, but it does mean it's not encyclopedic. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the firm is notable because it has an interesting practice, low growth to focus on profile cases like the Empire State Building IPO and Credit Suisse trade secrets. The cases are discussed widely online and in print publications. I propose to write about the individual notable cases with references to this law firm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:ARTanascio|ARTanascio (talk)ARTanascio]] (talk • contribs) 15:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More inclined to delete as there aren't any significant and notable sources with searches here, here, here and here; nothing outstanding. SwisterTwister talk 20:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reakash walters[edit]

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

Article about an unelected candidate that fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails above policies; at best it's WP:TOOSOON for him to be in an encyclopedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Her Bearcat (talk) 00:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The politician is in the aspirational phase, so no notability. In addition, the article is misnamed, so whoever wrote it didn't even care enough to name it Reakash Walters. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So they're in the running to become a party candidate for an election. Definitely fails WP:TOOSOON, WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unelected candidates for office do not pass WP:NPOL just for being candidates, either in a party's internal primary/nomination contest or on the general election ballot — if you cannot credibly and reliably source that she already passed a Wikipedia inclusion rule for some other reason before she became a candidate, then she does not become eligible for an article on here until she wins the election (and just to clarify in case there's still any doubt, it's the big enchilada on October 19 that she has to win to qualify for an article on here, not just the nomination.) And nothing else in the article either claims or sources anything that would put her over a different notability rule instead of NPOL. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in October if she wins the seat. Bearcat (talk) 00:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not being notable, as shown above. RoadWarrior445 (talk) 06:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Vigo County School Corporation. Davewild (talk) 06:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honey Creek Middle School[edit]

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

School fails WP:ORG and most likely WP:GNG too. There is virtually no coverage of the school in detail in WP:RS. What little coverage in local meida is not in detail. The only national coverage was a mention of a teacher in an article on the top 100 teachers in USA Today. Coverage of a teacher at the school does not equate to coverage of the school. It had been redirected to the local school district for nearly two years til an editor came along today and restored it. Per school article guidelines and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, re-establishing the redirect is a perfectly acceptable outcome for me. John from Idegon (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 02:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A middle school that doesn't have notability. The article says. . . it's a middle school with things to brag about, which is what every middle school can say. It's also, I'm pretty sure, not the only "Honey Creek Middle School" in the U.S., so a redirect may not be the best idea. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable middle school, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP, doesn't pass WP:NSCHOOL as it's not a secondary school (high school to use the US term). Joseph2302 (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per long standing precedent documented at OUTCOMES and as suggested by nominator, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kudpung (talk • contribs) 16:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Terre Haute, Indiana~~ Vigo County School Corporation per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010^Talk 21:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT - Davey2010, are you opposing redirect to Vigo County School Corporation, the prior redirect? Generally, if a district article exits, that is the usual target. We only go to the municipalities if there is not a district article. John from Idegon (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops sorry John from Idegon - I hadn't looked through the history - Just assumed you meant Terre Haut, Absolutely agree redirecting to the district as that's usually the preferred option :). –Davey2010^Talk 23:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vigo County School Corporation - This looks to me like a middle school permastub with marginal notability at best. If there is another "Honey Creek Middle School", we can create a hatnote at the target article, or perhaps convert to a disambiguation page. Either way, it would be helpful to direct readers to a location that at least discusses these schools. Mz7 (talk) 02:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the district, as usual. No need to delete altogether. We should do as we usually do with these--it's a workable compromise. DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vigo County School Corporation. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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