The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 01:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Angelica Sin[edit]

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

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, just nominations. No independent reliable sourcing. Negligible biographical content. Dubiously recreated after initial AFD. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as no evidence of notability, fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 01:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• Delete fails porn biography criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 17:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Divine Grid Healing[edit]

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

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

Delete poorly referenced WP:FRINGE topic created by confirmed Orangemoody sock. Brianhe (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete None of the references are about the subject. Given that the geo location is India there won't be much in easily reachable North American sources, but all I see are some videos on non-reliable sites. LaMona (talk) 03:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom and above. Vrac (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted A7 by Cerebellum. (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 15:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Odrasoft[edit]

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

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

Google search turns up LinkedIn, twitter, Pintrest, Facebook, and a number of listings in directories (Truelancer, Indiamart, etc.) as well as several hits to the company's own website, but I did not find non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. KDS4444^Talk 22:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Note that there is a Polish software consultancy of the same name [1], established in 2010. As to this more recent Indian web development firm, searches provide no evidence of notability. At most it appears to be a firm going about establishing its business. Given the lack of claim to notability in the article (once the peacockery copied from their website was removed), I am also flagging this as CSD A7. AllyD (talk) 07:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Looking at the page history, it previously had an A7 notice, then was blanked, then content added again (without the CSD) within a minute. There could be a case for the unblanking of a page triggering unsetting of the Page Curation flag so that it returns to New Page Patrol? AllyD (talk) 07:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 13:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Ríos[edit]

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

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, only nominations. Negligible reliable sourcing and biographical content. PROD removed without explanation or article improvement by IP with no other edits. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 00:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails the notability criteria for pornographic actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 17:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jarbook[edit]

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

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

Only citation is a dead link, a quick Google search can't find any other references. Tmbg37 (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't really find anything that specifically references this as an actual thing. The only thing I found was a blog that mentioned the Wikipedia article and that's about it. There's mentions of similarly titled things like contests where you have to guess what book was shredded and placed in a jar or art pieces like this one, but nothing that is specifically created like this article describes. I also have to question whether or not this is actually real. The article mentions a real publisher (Humanitas (publishing house)) and claims that they published some versions of this that were well known, but I can find no record of this offhand. I've contacted the publisher to see if this was ever something they did or not, but since their website is only in Romanian I'm not sure if I'll get a reply. They should have someone that speaks English but whether or not the message will get to someone prior to the article's deletion (which seems likely) is in question. If they do reply and say it's a hoax, I endorse inclusion in the hoax archives but I wouldn't archive it until we have some confirmation that it's a hoax and not just an art project with little to no coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I also found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 08:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A2 of ko:Wiki Not because it's foreign because that is not a valid rationale for deletion unless it has been listed at WP:PNT for two weeks, and not under G1 because it is not nonsense Jac16888 ^Talk 22:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

야성의 동맹[edit]

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

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

Foreign, Not english Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per WP:G1. - HyperGaruda (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 17:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Ahuja[edit]

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

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

No references to identify the topic. ЖunalForYou ^☎️📝 15:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but when using her name and some WP:BEFORE the topic is easy to "identify". Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there's simply nothing better and this has exited since Feruary 2011 so there was time for improvements. Pinging users who may be interested with this Yash!, Human3015, MichaelQSchmidt and AKS.9955. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the "ping". being neglected is a decent reason to tag for issues or even fix it yourself if so inclined, but a poor reason to delete. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alt using WP:INDAFD: ":Eva Ahuja"

• Keep as the subject is sourcable and topic meets WP:ENT and WP:BASIC through WP:GNG. Sheesh. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Has had significant roles in various notable television shows, thus satisfies criteria #1 of WP:NACTOR. Yash! 05:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above arguments. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sergey Arkhipov[edit]

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

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

Searches turned up nothing to show they meet WP:GNG, and based on what is currently in the article, they con't meet WP:SPORTCRIT (there is no specific criteria for bodybuilders). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No substantial coverage from reliable sources provided or found. And from the article, no reason to suppose that there would be any. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 09:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - local Tula, Russia (think Albany, New York for comparison) champ who also competed in Moscow. How is that in any way notable? Bearian (talk) 17:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ansh666 04:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco Stompers FC[edit]

San Francisco Stompers FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Club has not played in the national cup and is not in a WP:FPL, thus fails WP:FOOTYN. Club has not garnered significant coverage to meet requirements of WP:N. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 16:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 16:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 16:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 16:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I still believe that playing in the 4th tier of US soccer is notable, but the community disagrees, and so I have to go with that. No evidence this club meets GNG either. GiantSnowman 18:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I also believe clubs playing in the fourth tier are notable. GiantSnowman, I don't see a single AfD with a 4–3 outcome in favour of deletion as being community consensus (I hadn't seen that AfD but would have !voted to keep). Number 57 12:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I just want to point out that WP:AFD explicitly states that "[c]onsensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." Stating that the aforementioned AfD was decided on a 4-3 "vote" is incorrect. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 12:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This team (unlike the Canadian team that User:GiantSnowman notes above) is eligible to play in the U.S. Open Cup. And it has played in US Open Cup qualification rounds in 2013, 2014, and 2015 thus meeting WP:FOOTYN.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - is this still going? The club has played in USOC qualifying rounds in multiple years, satisfying WP:FOOTYN. SportingFlyer (talk) 01:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Number 57 and 4th tier of US Football is notable ,the club is eligible to play in the U.S. Open Cup and has played in qualification rounds.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ansh666 04:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Real San Jose[edit]

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

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

Club has not played in the national cup and is not in a WP:FPL, thus fails WP:FOOTYN. Club has not garnered significant coverage to meet requirements of WP:N. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 16:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 16:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 16:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 16:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I still believe that playing in the 4th tier of US soccer is notable, but the community disagrees, and so I have to go with that. No evidence this club meets GNG either. GiantSnowman 18:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I also believe clubs playing in the fourth tier are notable. GiantSnowman, I don't see a single AfD with a 4–3 outcome in favour of deletion as being community consensus (I hadn't seen that AfD but would have !voted to keep). Number 57 12:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I just want to point out that WP:AFD explicitly states that "[c]onsensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." Stating that the aforementioned AfD was decided on a 4-3 "vote" is incorrect. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 12:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This team (unlike the Canadian team that User:GiantSnowman notes above) is eligible to play in the U.S. Open Cup. And it has played in US Open Cup qualification rounds in 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, and 2015 thus meeting WP:FOOTYN. Nfitz (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Number 57 and Nfitz.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ansh666 04:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Rapids FC[edit]

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

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

Club has not played in the national cup and is not in a WP:FPL, thus fails WP:FOOTYN. Club has not garnered significant coverage to meet requirements of WP:N. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 16:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 16:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 16:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 16:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I still believe that playing in the 4th tier of US soccer is notable, but the community disagrees, and so I have to go with that. No evidence this club meets GNG either. GiantSnowman 18:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I also believe clubs playing in the fourth tier are notable. GiantSnowman, I don't see a single AfD with a 4–3 outcome in favour of deletion as being community consensus (I hadn't seen that AfD but would have !voted to keep). Number 57 12:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I just want to point out that WP:AFD explicitly states that "[c]onsensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." Stating that the aforementioned AfD was decided on a 4-3 "vote" is incorrect. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 12:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This club is notable in this country, as it was the ranked second in attendance last season among fourth or lower tier clubs. This club was even mentioned on the MLS website last year. [2] And if participation in the national cup is a criteria for keeping it, it is only a matter of time before this team qualifies. 50.200.180.3 (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Your last point is WP:CRYSTAL. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 12:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  This point is that this team is eligible to participate in the national cup. The guideline WP:FOOTYN states that if a team is not eligible it should be removed, but this team is now eligible. 50.200.180.3 (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This team has received regular media coverage in the Grand Rapids area and has a lot of interest. Also, the attendance of this club would have ranked #8 in the third tier last season (2015 USL season attendance) and #9 in the second tier (2015 NASL season attendance). Regardless of what level on the pyramid this team is, we should keep this article because this is a club people care about and are likely to look up on Wikipedia. Rungladwin (talk) 21:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Grand Rapids FC (unlike the Canadian team that User:GiantSnowman notes above) is eligible to play in the U.S. Open Cup.Nfitz (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There are three related AfDs peding. It may make sense to relist or consolidate them in order to ensure a more consistent treatment. The others are: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AFC Ann Arbor and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oakland United FC.

Each article is different. This team is eligible for the U.S. Open Cup - I'm not sure Oakland is. Leave separate. Nfitz (talk) 06:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It appears as though the only teams from the National Premier Soccer League that are nominated for deletion are Grand Rapids FC and AFC Ann Arbor. Teams in NPSL are eligible for qualification into the U.S. Open Cup so I thought we were suppose to keep these pages. 50.200.180.3 (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:FOOTYN, teams which have played in the national cup tournament have presumed notability. Just being eligible does not provide notability. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 14:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Number 57 Fourth Division of US soccer are notable a single AFD is not a barometer further this club is eligible to play in the U.S. Open Cup.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ansh666 20:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AFC Ann Arbor[edit]

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

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

Club has not played in the national cup and is not in a WP:FPL, thus fails WP:FOOTYN. Club has not garnered significant coverage to meet requirements of WP:N. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 16:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 16:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 16:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 16:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I still believe that playing in the 4th tier of US soccer is notable, but the community disagrees, and so I have to go with that. No evidence this club meets GNG either. GiantSnowman 18:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Posted on the talk page, maybe I needed to post it here? Gremlyn1 (talk) 15:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little unclear on the guidelines. AFC Ann Arbor has not played in, though is eligible to play in, the U.S. Open Cup as of the 2016 season. Some of the guidelines seem to say that eligibility is enough to meet WP:FOOTYN. Is that the case? It appears as though all NPSL teams have an entry on Wikipedia and from clicking through, it looks like only AFC Ann Arbor and Grand Rapids FC have been flagged for possible deletion, though I didn't look through all of them. I can see that the article may have been premature while they were in the Great Lakes Premier League, which itself may not meet WP:FOOTYN, but now that they have moved to the NPSL...? Gremlyn1 (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - AFC Ann Arbor (unlike the Canadian team that User:GiantSnowman notes above) is eligible to play in the U.S. Open Cup. And their transfer to NPSL has received media attention [3] Nfitz (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There are three related AfDs peding. It may make sense to consolidate them in order to ensure a more consistent treatment. The others are: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oakland United FC and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Rapids FC. Cbl62 (talk) 15:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal (company)[edit]

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

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

Non-notable business organization. Binksternet (talk) 15:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 17:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 17:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I have no idea why someone think the company is non-notable. The company basically served the Greater China region, so it's normal that foreign people don't know it. However, it's doesn't mean that the company is not notable. The other pages named "Eternal" on Wikipedia are also non-notable to me, but people including me should keep neutral and objective because of the limited knowledge. Leehsiao (talk) 01:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Serving a large region does not make a company notable. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) to get a sense of what needs to be done here. Binksternet (talk) 05:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If there are sources in Chinese then they need to be provided. Source #1 on the article is a dead link; sources 2 & 3 do not mention the company but are about Jolin Tsai, not the company. LaMona (talk) 03:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or merge to its parent company, Era Television. There are just not enough in depth sources in English to justify its own article. Bearian (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Resident Evil 3: Nemesis. (non-admin closure) ansh666 12:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Mercenaries - Operation Mad Jackal[edit]

The Mercenaries - Operation Mad Jackal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. Most of the article consists of game guide content; not appropriate for Wikipedia. Adam9007 (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably could have been a quick (cheap) redirect to Resident Evil 3: Nemesis#Gameplay, where it's mentioned. There's no apparent explanation why this should be covered separately from the main game. czar 17:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Resident Evil 3: Nemesis.Fails WP:GNG, certainly not independently notable. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ansh666 04:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Delgrosso[edit]

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

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

Non-notable small-city politician who was briefly mayor; fails any test of notability I can think of. Orange Mike | Talk 19:49, 3 November 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 November 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep, was mayor of a non-trivial population (70k+) who has been covered extensively in multiple reliable sources ([4][5][6][7][8]) thus meeting WP:GNG. Antrocent (♫♬) 20:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 21:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 21:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 21:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is no significant coverage outside the local area. The local mayor will be mentioned in the local paper. If that made for notability, every local mayor would be notables. But WP:BIO says that is not the case. John from Idegon (talk) 06:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:BIO#Politicians there is insufficient evidence of significant press coverage, most of what is sourced is obituary type coverage.JCO312 (talk) 19:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
  1. Radzievich, Nicole (2009-10-08). "Bethlehem loses longtime leader, James Delgrosso". The Morning Call. Archived from the original on 2009-10-10. Retrieved 2015-11-14.
  2. Radzievich, Nicole (2004-01-05). "Changing of mayoral guard today in Bethlehem ** Delgrosso steps down after 2-decade career in political trenches". The Morning Call. Archived from the original on 2015-11-14. Retrieved 2015-11-14.

     The article notes:

     On a shoestring budget of $200, James Delgrosso won a council seat in 1981, largely on the reputation of his father and his own political base after years of teaching in the Bethlehem Area School District.

     Today, he steps away from city politics, possibly for good, after losing the most expensive and one of the nastiest mayoral campaigns in city history, one that introduced the high-finance world of modern politicking, with television ads, consultants and attack mailers.

     Delgrosso, appointed interim mayor nine months ago, will pass the top post to a political rival, 34-year-old John Callahan, who beat Delgrosso by 245 votes in the May 21 primary.

  3. Ayers, Chuck (2003-02-28). "Delgrosso says he'll seek interim mayor's seat ** Office needs experienced person to keep city on the right path, councilman says". The Morning Call. Archived from the original on 2015-11-14. Retrieved 2015-11-14.

     The article notes:

     Bethlehem City Councilman James Delgrosso, a 20-year council veteran, formally announced his candidacy Thursday for both the interim appointment to the vacant mayor's seat and to seek election to the remaining two years of the unexpired term.

     ...

     Delgrosso pointed to his record leading the rezoning of the Bethlehem Steel land six years ago as a key to the revitalization of the expansive South Side brownfields property.

  4. Jordan, Tracy (1997-01-14). "Delgrosso Seeks 5th Council Term - * He Says He Offers Experience That Will Be Needed Because of Turnover On Bethlehem Panel". The Morning Call. Archived from the original on 2015-11-14. Retrieved 2015-11-14.

     The article notes:

     Democrat James Delgrosso could become Bethlehem's most experienced councilman if he's elected to a fifth consecutive term this year.

     Delgrosso, 53, of Johnston Drive, announced his candidacy for re-election yesterday.

     He is the only councilman whose term expires at the end of the year who is interested in returning for another four years.

     Delgrosso said he considers himself to be a fiscal conservative, stressing the need for government to do more with less while maintaining essential services and not increasing the financial burden on residents.

     Although Delgrosso frequently challenges the need for increased fees, taxes and loans, he said he supports projects that will bring growth and economic development.

     Delgrosso, who has been a driver's education teacher at Liberty High School the past 32 years, had been considered as a mayoral contender to replace Ken Smith.

  5. Olanoff, Lynn (2009-10-09). "James Delgrosso, former interim Bethlehem mayor and longtime councilman, remembered for Bethlehem Steel rezoning, fiscal responsibility". The Express-Times. Archived from the original on 2015-11-14. Retrieved 2015-11-14.
  6. Koltnow, Bo (2009-10-08). "Former Bethlehem Mayor Passes Away". WFMZ-TV. Archived from the original on 2015-11-14. Retrieved 2015-11-14.
  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow James Delgrosso to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 06:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)/li>[reply]

• The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians #3 ("Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.") He has received sustained significant press coverage from the major regional newspaper The Morning Call throughout his 20 years on the city council as a city councilman and mayor. Cunard (talk) 06:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - while not that big, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania is the center city of a larger metropolitan area. Bearian (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Optismo[edit]

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

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

non notable and promotional. Essentially all the refs are to its own site. DGG ( talk ) 20:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there's not even much as it is but there's also nothing to suggest better. Pinging tagger Josu4u. SwisterTwister talk 20:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• SwisterTwister I requested Optismo for Wikipedia:G11, but Appable removed my speedy deletion tag and commented 'Reverted 1 edit by Josu4u (talk): Move to WP:PROD or WP:AFD, do not recreate declined WP:CSDs.'Josu4u (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Improved: Nickinglis addressed the issue of references to own site by adding two additional external references, one from the IG Initiative which is the leading thinktank with regards to Information Governance and one from Iron Mountain, one of the largest companies in the industry referencing one of Optismo's Open Source models. I'm looking to make this article as useful as possible for Wikipedia visitors and there are similar companies (competitors) in the space have all been granted entries. Optismo has had noteworthy creations, The Information Governance Conference, The Information Governance Model, etc. which make it more noteworthy than similar companies and deserving of its' entry in Wikipedia.

• Delete The references added were mainly to a conference that the company participated in, in its product area. Another reference is from the Iron Mountain company web site, where they promote "solutions." Cite #2 didn't mention the company. This means that there are still no third-party sources. LaMona (talk) 04:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable, run of the mill WP:ARTSPAM by editor with undeclared conflict of interest. Undisclosed paid editing is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not. The promotional tone of the article reflects its intended role as an advertisement. Citobun (talk) 09:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per nom and above editors. Searches did not turn up anything to show they pass either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. LaMona's assessment of the new sources in the article is spot on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fullstack Academy[edit]

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

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

Looks like a PR piece for the company. Neither the text nor the references give any indication of notability, and a web search turned up nothing worthwhile. Of the 6 references in the "awards and media" section, the Skilledup.com "award"[9] has no substance, the Forbes and VentureBeat mentions[10][11] are only in passing, and the other three[12][13][14] are all (advertorials?) about Fullstack's 2015 "hiring day".

Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - blatant advert in the the typical sickly-smooth tones of a software promotion brochure. Artspamat its best. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Keep - Significant coverage in these three cite sources: [15][16][17]. "Advertorial" assessment is subjective and these sources are generally considered reliable. Although they may be primarily covering the "hiring day", the are also giving significant coverage the organization. ~Kvng (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of points. First, WP:NRV says "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest ...". So, even if that one event was significant and the coverage was genuinely independent, that would not make the organisation notable, and in fact there is no other coverage of the organisation. Second, do you not think it's strange that an organisation which has had no coverage to date (and no coverage afterwards) suddenly has several media sources covering its "hiring day"? And, not one of those reports makes any suggestion that either the event or the company is any way unique, significant, or notable; they're all just there to have a look around at something they happened to came across. Amazing coincidence. Looks like advertorials to me. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The topic appears to meet first-order notability requirements. If you're right and there's a scam, this will become more apparent over time. I don't feel a need to try and read the tea leaves here. There is no urgency to delete. ~Kvng (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as spam, the newly added sources are not significant mentions or are simply press releases and the one that might, Buisness Insider is a very dubious source for reliability. Nothing else that indicates it meets GNG 73.138.114.150 (talk) 23:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now until a better article can be made as I see nothing currently better and convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
  1. Fischer, Ben (2014-07-09). "Fullstack turns up the heat in increasingly crowded coder-bootcamp niche". New York Business Journal. American City Business Journals. Retrieved 2015-11-18.
  2. "Fullstack Academy - Fox 5 News Feature: Hiring Day July 2015". WNYW. July 2015. Retrieved 2015-11-18.
  3. Alfaro, Lyanne (2015-07-25). "4 traits that make developers highly desirable by employers". Business Insider. Archived from the original on 2015-11-18. Retrieved 2015-11-18.
  4. Rodriguez, Salvador (2015-10-15). "Exclusive: Grace Hopper Academy, An All-Women Coding School, To Open In New York". International Business Times. Archived from the original on 2015-11-18. Retrieved 2015-11-18.

     The article notes:

     Fullstack Academy, one of the top coding boot camps, is launching a second school, but unlike many coding schools, this one will focus solely on training women interested in entering the tech field. Grace Hopper Academy, as the school is called, is the latest effort by the tech industry to close the gender gap between men and women in tech roles.

  5. Valentin, Ashish (2015-10-15). "Alumni-Founded Fullstack Academy Offers Cutting-Edge Coding Education". University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign. Archived from the original on 2015-11-18. Retrieved 2015-11-18.
  6. Mulligan, Christina (2015-10-16). "Fullstack unveils the Grace Hopper Academy". SD Times. Archived from the original on 2015-11-18. Retrieved 2015-11-18.
  7. Bort, Julie (2015-10-15). "This school won't charge women programmers for tuition until after they land jobs". Business Insider. Archived from the original on 2015-11-18. Retrieved 2015-11-18.
  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Fullstack Academy to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 07:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• There is sustained significant coverage of the subject. It received coverage in July 2014 from New York Business Journal. It received coverage in July 2015 in WNYW. In October 2015, it received coverage for its Grace Hopper Academy plan in International Business Times, SD Times, and Business Insider.

  Business Insider is a reliable source per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 83#Is Business Insider reliable?, where an editor wrote:

  Yes, Business Insider and the article you cite, qualify as reliable sources. It has editorial overright.[18] It's been cited by other reliable sources such as New York Daily News,[19] The San Francisco Chronicle,[20] Bloomburg,[21] and Reuters[22] which indicates that it has a reputation for accuracy and fat-checking. It's been cited by as many as 377 articles[23] which indicates that many other editors in the community find it reliable.

  Cunard (talk) 07:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Samiran Barua Ahi Ase[edit]

Samiran Barua Ahi Ase (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unremarkable film. KDS4444^Talk 15:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ALTS:

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

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

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

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

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

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

and using WP:INDAFD: "Samiran Barua Ahi Ase" "Prodyut Kumar Deka" "Manoj Kumar Goswami" "Prodyut Kumar Deka" "Atanu Bhuyan" "Tapan Das" "Brajen Bora"

• Keep this poor stub, as sources exist to meet WP:NF and the thing is improvable. In an aside, a lack of BEFORE is a not a good reason to take improvable topics to AFD. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep if it can actually be improved. SwisterTwister talk 07:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cevdet Erek[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:ARTIST, non-notable.. JMHamo (talk) 23:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. In my opinion, the combined weight of the non-trivial references is sufficient to establish notability.  --Lambiam 01:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Because of low participation, even with two relistings, I'll restore this article on demand, but I'll most likely just start a new AFD on it. Deor (talk) 10:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Elgin Review[edit]

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

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

Weekly newspaper with a circulation of 1055 (Nebraska Press Association), serving Elgin, Nebraska, population 661. Article contains no assertions of notability. A Google search for ("elgin review" nebraska) turns up no evidence of in-depth coverage by independent sources. An online history of Elgin includes one sentence about the newspaper. Nebraska governor Val Peterson (served 1947–53) published the Review from 1936 to 1946 (see online bio) but Google search for ("val peterson" "elgin review") doesn't turn up any evidence of coverage meeting WP:GNG. Unless weekly newspapers automatically meet notability standards, this one apparently doesn't. Ammodramus (talk) 20:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not much to show notability besides maybe it being a newspaper, a quick look through lists of newspapers by state shows that many do not have articles, a listing on a state list may be all that can be guaranteed. It's also already mentioned in its city article. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keep - sourcing issue seems to be resolved at this point. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kitty (actor)[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE -- but one article in The Hindu to source this. Note that there is a person in the United States Chicago area with the same name [24]. Brianhe (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – A notable actor who has also directed a couple of films. Sourcing needs work though. —Vensatry _(Talk) 14:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So how do we know he is notable without sourcing? – Brianhe (talk) 15:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he certainly meets WP:ENTERTAINER. You can always consider WP:ATD before nominating articles for deletion. —Vensatry _(Talk) 17:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Kitty is a famous actor in South Indian films and adequate references are added, so please remove the page deletion tag.Rajeshbieee (talk) 03:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Bit puzzled on why a bloke goes by the name "Kitty" but we'll leave that for another discussion! , That aside I'm finding everything to do with cats but nothing on this bloke, Meets NACTOR but fails GNG, I can't find anything so clearly non notable actor, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 00:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
  1. Parthasarathy, Anusha (2011-01-29). "Packing a punch". The Hindu. Archived from the original on 2015-11-18. Retrieved 2015-11-18.
  2. Sridharan, Malavikka (2015-09-26). "Arvind Swamy has more in the 'Kitty'". The News Today. Archived from the original on 2015-11-18. Retrieved 2015-11-18.

     The article notes:

     Chennai: Survival of the fittest might soon become the mantra of the bygone era, as it is now time to say, survival of the multi-faceted. And it is our Tamil film actors who are standing true to this, the best examples being Arvind Swamy and Raja Krishnamoorthy (popularly known as Kitty) who are successful entrepreneurs too.

     ...

     Raja Krishnamoorthy working as a HR consultant, has made his way up in films and management.

     ...

     Fondly called as Kitty, Raja is an actor, writer and director with more than 65 films to his credit. He does not miss opportunities even in small screens and continues to concentrate in different spheres, it is learnt.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Raja Krishnamoorthy to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 06:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The coverage is just enough to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, though it is on the light side, so I'm a "weak keep". Cunard (talk) 06:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but move to his proper name Raja Krishnamoorthy. Stifle (talk) 09:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 13:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Southeast Asian Directors of Music Association[edit]

Southeast Asian Directors of Music Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This association has only recently officially registered in Thailand, so perhaps that is why there is so little mention of it; or perhaps it because all the coverage is in languages I can't read. In any case, with all due allowance for WP:CSB, it appears not meet our notability requirements, either WP:CORP or the GNG. WP:TOOSOON, perhaps. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence of real-world impact or notice. --Calton | Talk 11:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - searches turned up a grand total of zero hits. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Nittoli Musician[edit]

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

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

Musician who does not meet WP:MUSIC or WP:ENTERTAINER. He has released songs on a label which may or may not be major, but WP:MUSICBIO says that the person should have released two or more albums, not just songs. (I can't find his name on Trend Def's website either.) bonadea contributions talk 16:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC) Added: the article now seems to indicate that he is a lyrics writer rather than a musician, so WP:COMPOSER would apply instead. I can't see that any of those criteria are met either, but maybe if it becomes clearer what he has actually written lyrics for, it might be the case that he's written for something notable. It doesn't look like it, though. --bonadea contributions talk 19:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi friend , he has done lot of albums. Details are added in wiki . Please see . He has done albums with famous celebrities. Alwayssmileguys (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But has he released his own albums? It looks like he's written the lyrics for songs released on other people's albums which is a different thing. Since you are the article's author and added the "Albums/songs" section, could you please indicate for the entries there which are individual songs and which are album titles? Are any of the songs he's written the lyrics for notable, according to Wikipedia's definition of notability? Also note that if you add references, the information in the article has to be supported by the reference - there's several of the existing references that don't mention Nittoli at all. --bonadea contributions talk 19:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - generally, we only keep the final winner or at most the top three finalists from reality shows. Bearian (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His albums are updated in the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Tohn person is 7th in Platinum hit and within 36 position in Americal Idol and acted in one movie , released 2 albums. Very similar to Nick Nittoli - > So I think Nick Nittoli is equally important . Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melissa_Rapp was 8th in Platinum hit. Released 3 albums has a live wiki page as well. Nick stands a bit higher to these two. Alwayssmileguys (talk) 03:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate "keep" comment has been struck out - each participant in the discussion should make only one "keep" or "delete" comment. Regarding the comment above that "[h]is albums are updated in the article" - there are three albums listed, but none of them is actually "his album". Twilight Goes Punk is an album by "various artists" with seven tracks, one of them by Nittoli ; Platinum Hit:The Winning Songs, Season One has ten tracks, one of them co-written by Nittoli; and In the Studio Now - Single is clearly a single, not an album. Once again, please address the notability question by looking at the relevant criteria for notability. There is no sign of them having been met, and there are still no secondary sources at all. iTunes links and other commercial links are not reliable sources. The existence of articles about less notable people cannot be used as an argument to keep this article - quite possibly those two should be deleted as well (frankly I see little notability for either of them at a quick glance, but again that's irrelevant for this discussion) --bonadea contributions talk 20:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 13:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Khalida Jan[edit]

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

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

Doesn't seem to have met WP:BIO. Article is not in NPOV and has many peacock terms. Should be deleted I guess. —UY Scuti ^Talk(pka, JAaron95) 14:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk(pka, JAaron95) 15:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk(pka, JAaron95) 15:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk(pka, JAaron95) 15:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peacock terms removed and more references added for validity. The subject is a TV celebrity on live soaps like Razia Sultan and Siya Ke Ram, also one of the biggest filmhouses in India, YRF Studios had cast her in the lead role of Kismat which was a landmark achievement for YRF to enter soaps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Husain Seyd (talk • contribs) 15:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Major commercials which feature the subject are live on online as well as TV, brands include Mortein, Kisan, Paperboat which are big in India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Husain Seyd (talk • contribs) 15:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Husain Seyd (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

• Delete as I simply see no convincingly better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Blatant promotionalism, with at most very borderline notability DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kane Ian[edit]

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

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

Poorly-sourced article about a DJ. Fails WP:BASIC for lack of available reliable sources. - MrX 12:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page seems to be legit now with verified sources. Perhaps someone can add more of his discography Bluesey (talk) 04:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 02:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Toya Nash[edit]

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

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Promotion from blocked spammer sourced to press releases and a passing mentions. Note that the first three are the same despite different bylines. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now as I see no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with rationale of duffbeerforme. No actual source that conforms to guidelines. JCO312 (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have to also agree with duffbeerforme. Tyler mongrove (talk) 15:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elsken Jorisdochter[edit]

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

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

The subject gets only brief mentions in a small number of sources. She purchased Dutch bonds that (long after her death) became the oldest ones ever traded in North America. I'm not seeing any significant coverage here. EricEnfermero (Talk) 07:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- The endurance of the bonds seems remarkable, but the person is notable only for that. If anything the article should be restructured to be about the claim in 1938, more than the 1620s purchase. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 13:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alchemy Systems[edit]

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

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

I thought about it some more, but in the end I concluded that 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." Sources mentioned in the first AfD are not accessible to me ([25]), and were removed in the rewrite that does not seem to have made the article more notable. Looking at modern Google News hits, I find primarily mentions in passing and PR/preess release stuff. There is [26], but setting outside how reliable and non-local the Austin Business Journal is, the scope of the coverage seems very limited and local (AS taking over "The Chilton Consulting Group, which was founded in 1997, employed 12 workers."). Coverage by trade journals such as Meat & Poultry[27] is problematic (see discussion at talk of NCOMPANY). Yes, it exists, and generates some local/trade journal coverage, but I don't think this is sufficient to merit an entry in an encyclopedia. Oh, and there is also the likely COI-issue related to the article creator, a SPA Alchemy.guru (talk · contribs). As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam that we have to curtail. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete In reading some of the articles that appear in a Google search (e.g. this) it looks like there should be something interesting to say about this company. However, I was not about to find any in depth reporting on the company's work, such as the impact on food service safety. Nearly all sources I found are in some way related to the company (creator of their app, for example). Even the award is from an organization that the company is a member of. I'd change to keep if someone can find better sources. LaMona (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chenab Club[edit]

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

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

Fails GNG. There were thousands of clubs established by British officers during the British Raj and most of them are still open these days. What notability does this club have except the fact that Britishers built it? I fail to see any RS mentioning it in detail. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I couldn't find anymore significant coverage than this. Fails GNG and WP:GEOFEAT. —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 13:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Henry F. Hewes[edit]

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

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

Sees to fail WP:POLITICIAN to me, unremarkable worker on the stokehold.TheLongTone (talk) 16:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 16:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 17:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 17:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 17:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I'm just not seeing a strong claim to passing WP:NPOL here. A person does not get a Wikipedia article just for being an unelected candidate for political office — if you cannot provide credible and properly sourced evidence that a person already passed a Wikipedia inclusion guideline for some other reason before running in an election, then they have to win the election, not just have their name on a ballot, to clear the inclusion bar. And for referencing, I see a lot of primary sourcing and passing namechecks of his existence, with just one article ("Right to Life Candidate Sees Moral Ills") that actually has him as its substantive subject — but one article does not make for a WP:GNG pass either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. I will gather more secondary sources to add to the entry. I understand the parameters for a a WP:GNG Towernyc2003 (talk) 05:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable unless he actually wins an office. Other coverage fails GNG (in passing, niche/local, etc.). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeni Kuti[edit]

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

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

Declined speedy, but for the life of me I cannot see a credible claim of non-inhereited notability here. TheLongTone (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep:@TheLongTone:, the article passes WP:ENTERTAINER 3 because she is the pioneer of Felabration and the subject also passes WP:BIO1E. Wikicology declined your CSD request earlier, you obviously have no clue what the notability criteria are. Regards!--—OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 17:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pots, kettles.TheLongTone (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep Subject of the article obviously pass WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. An article need not be written in a peacock tone to make a credible claim of significance. Sometimes, the presence of reliable sources might be enough for an article to pass A7. That being said, this is a clear case of nominator failing to do WP:BEFORE. I easily found Vanguard Newspaper, The Sun Newspaper, Daily post News, The Nation Newspaper, BBC News, This book, Los Angeles Times, CNN, Leadership Newspaper, Entertainment express, Nigeria Bulletin, Daily Post, Thisday Newspaper, [28], this book. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep likely as there seems to be enough coverage and attention to suggest a better and keepable article at this time. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep The subject of the article is well known among the musical members of the Ransome-Kuti family in Nigeria, not mentioning her successful foray into other fields. Eruditescholar (talk) 12:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deor (talk) 11:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of last games released on video game consoles[edit]

List of last games released on video game consoles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This list lacks sufficient sourcing (mostly unsourced, and no suitable sourcing exists). We'd have to rely on original research to determine the "last game" released in almost every case, and even with that we'll struggle to find the actual release dates to verify the claim. Previously discussed at WT:VG#List of last games released on video game consoles. czar 16:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 16:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete simply because it is impossible to cover this topic without resorting to original research 90% of the time. This list knows no scope where we can mostly make use of reliable sources. Also, I do doubt the correctness of many of the listed games (Brazilian games released for Sega systems, for instance), but it seems impossible to find out what the latest game per console is. Also unclear distinction between "published" games, "released" games and "created" games. ~Mable (chat) 16:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per sourcing issue identified by Maplestrip. In the rare case where a game is established as the final game for a platform, that can be noted in the the game's article and the platform's article, but as that's going to be the exception and not the rule, a list to document those is not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 16:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per sourcing issues and agreement with other thoughts expressed above. BcRIPster (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy and delete, it's not impossible to verify, just very difficult. Maybe someday it'll be covered in textbooks or museums. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While this is a list of "officially" released games, a lot of these games released last are redlinks that I don't see being created anytime soon. So by that logic, those games aren't notable by themselves to have an article. Also, it isn't clear what "last released" actually means. See PSP games in North America: Sweet Fuse: At Your Side (last retail game), Class of Heroes 2 (last physical release), StreetKix: Freestyle (last original game), Brandish: The Dark Revenant (last digital release), Summon Night 5 (last localized game). --Soetermans. T / C 11:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I was discussing this some too in the discussion that led to the deletion discussion. There are a lot of factual errors regarding the PSP entries. I'd clean it up, but I figured it looks like its moving towards deletion, and I wasn't sure if there were the sources to do so, so I didn't bother. Sergecross73 msg me 14:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a non-notable topic. This is fairly arbitrary criteria where many factors affect a "release date". While "useful" is not a deletion criteria, I don't see how this list is helpful in encyclopedic manner. Not to mention verifying the individual items would be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Truly "final" game by some criteria can be mentioned in game's and console's articles. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as most of this is just original research and can also be called listcruft. --TL22 (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Reliable sources just don't seem to consistently document this. I'd be fine with someone recreating/restoring it if sourcing can ever be found, but I've looked into this before, and it can be hard to find conclusive answers on this. Sergecross73 msg me 14:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --The1337gamer (talk) 11:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. It is filled with original research. AdrianGamer (talk) 15:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator —zziccardi (talk) 00:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2007 New England Patriots season . -- RoySmith (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

19-0: The Historic Championship Season of New England's Unbeatable Patriots[edit]

19-0: The Historic Championship Season of New England's Unbeatable Patriots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

What is the point of a page for a book which was never published (or presumably even completed for that matter)? — DeeJayK (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge to 2007 New England Patriots season - found a few humorous articles like this, but not enough to meet GNG for its own article. It was kept in previous AfD back in 2008, but I think hindsight shows lack of notability. I can see an article about an unpublished book being notable if it had persistent coverage (ie If I Did It - which had an article long before it was eventually published) or reached iconic status, but this never has. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Merge and redirect - this is going around in circles. It was redirected to 2007 New England Patriots season, I restored the article after it came up at Rfd (see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 28#19-0: The Historic Championship Season of New England's Unbeatable Patriots). This is never going to be more than a stub, but mentions of this book do keep coming up even in the current year (e.g. [29]), which suggests GNG is satisfied. I'm speculating, but I feel that the particular irony of this title is enhanced by the fact that the 2007 Patriots were (or would have been) among the only teams in history to (almost) achieve a perfect record in the NFL, and the fact that the Giants' win is considered one of the greatest upsets in sports history ([30]), so this title will be a lasting part of football lore. Sports is silly sometimes. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It shouldn't be redirected, it should be merged. Yes, everyone knows about the 15-1 season. The coverage just sort of says the same thing - (book about Patriot's projected perfect season cancelled) and almost fails WP:NOTNEWS, but there's nothing in-depth. The mention in the recent article is just a joke but it's not like it's still getting headlines. It's sort of an ironic footnote to the season, and since it's only a paragraph or so, is fine for the article on the season. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that this aborted book merits mention in the 2007 New England Patriots season article, but I simply don't see the need for a stub article on a non-published book of which we know little more than the proposed topic (drawn from the title) and a cover image. — DeeJayK (talk) 15:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well I'm fine with that treatment too. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and weak redirect – I agree with the previous bit of discussion. It's notable content, but the book's near-existence and cancellation can be described in two sentences and when that's the case it's better to put it in the parent article. I think I'm only baulking at the redirect because the book has such a pompous name, but I couldn't give a strong reason for not redirecting the the appropriate section of the season article. Aspirex (talk) 06:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I completely agree with you re: the pomposity of title of this proposed book, as long as it appears to be the correct proposed title I don't see why the page shouldn't be maintained as a redirect. — DeeJayK (talk) 16:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Child's First Library of Learning[edit]

A Child's First Library of Learning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable series of childrens' educational books. I can't find substantial third-party references which demonstrate notability. Mikeblas (talk) 14:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no evidence here of notability & search comes up with zip.TheLongTone (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. A search for SLJ and Horn Book Guide sources brings up multiple reviews. ([31]) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks like this was part of a larger series with the basic title of "A Child's First...", so this could probably be turned into an article for the larger series, which would potentially be easier to summarize and overall source. I have found reviews from three different outlets, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not set for a better notable and acceptable article yet. SwisterTwister talk 08:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn JMHamo (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joanne Smith[edit]

• NOMINATION WITHDRAWN JMHamo (talk) 01:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:BIO, non-notable JMHamo (talk) 14:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This was (incorrectly in my view) WP:A7 tagged 21 minutes after creation with no indication either on the talk page or edit summary of WP:BEFORE due diligence. This is a vice-president of a major corporation. There are a number of editorial articles in notable publications eg [32][33][34] as well as very many news mentions that can be found by Google News and HighBeam searches. A straightforward pass of WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Deor (talk) 10:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of youngest inventors[edit]

List of youngest inventors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

How can we ever define or identify who are the youngest inventors. By definition there should be just one right? Legacypac (talk) 13:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  13:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  13:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom and WP:LSC. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Nothing to suggest better and keeping. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Inclusion criteria is too subjective. I guess it could be retitled, but it would still be problematic, as "list of inventors under the age of 18" is really quite arbitrary. We've got a list of inventors, so if these people are notable, maybe they could be added there. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Leniency is given to Indian subjects as compared to the UK sourcing in India is pretty poor, I've found a few sources by searching "Borosi Prodyut" so I'd say notability is there. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Borosi[edit]

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

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

Subject of article does not appear to be notable per WP:GNG. Would have nominated this under CSD but there is no category for "unremarkable movies". KDS4444^Talk 14:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no speedy category because CSD rarely applies to films that true diligence finds covered in multiple sources, even if not currently used... and no sourcable topic ever HAS to say "I am important because" (chuckle). And as for same reason at AFD, an unfounded claim of "unremarkable movie" is opinion and not a deletion rationale. That's not the way its supposed to work here, thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can find no references to demonstrate the notability required to meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. /wia /tlk 20:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Borosi "Prodyut Kumar Deka" "Debashish Goswami" "Dinesh Goswami" "Pabitra Kumar Deka" "Taufique Rahman" "Jowan Dutta" "Madhusmita Borkotoki"

• Keep as a released film which meets WP:NF through available coverage even if unused. To KDS4444 and Wikiisawesome... Google News does not crawl and index Indian newspaper articles properly, so please give the tools at WP:INDAFD a decent chance with expanded-related searches before simply declaring an improvable film topic as "non-notable" simply because it is poorly written or unsourced. Will add some sources later. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the time for adding sources usually before the article gets posted to the mainspace? or perhaps during the deletion discussion? A promise to take care of it in the future isn't terribly helpful where we are standing right now, which is on a ledge looking at an article with no references and no claim of notability, which is an old theme and the moss is growing on our toes. KDS4444^Talk 10:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, you can go ahead and add some just as WP:NPP suggests... that would be great. Unlike some, I actually have a life away from Wikipedia, and WP:IMPROVE what I can as quickly as I can (you've been keeping be busy). Apparently it is a lot easier to ignore WP:NOTCLEANUP, WP:BEFORE and WP:NPOSSIBLE and send improvable topics to AFD and expect that others do the work (chuckle), but advice elsewhere is quite helpful in building an encyclopedia: WP:WIP, WP:IMPATIENT, WP:DEADLINE, & WP:SEP. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 13:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MMGY Global[edit]

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

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

Certainly unacceptable current version and it's questionable whether this can be better notable, improvable and acceptable as the best I found was this and this. SwisterTwister talk 23:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can find various pieces of press coverage of deals (one now added into the article as a basic reference) and the firm's publicity of their annual "Portrait of American Travelers", but I am seeing nothing substantial about the firm which would meet WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources required. Here's the second [35]. ~Kvng (talk) 15:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources is indeed required. Thefirst is a local journal article about a local business, which is totally indscriminate. The new one is a press release in a trade magazine. Neither count. And if they did, 2 does not automatically mean multiple; it depends on the quality of the sources & the substantiality of the coverage. . DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as a redirect to whichever band he is most associated with. Jenks24 (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Mason (singer)[edit]

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

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

Questionably notable? as I'm not sure which band article he would be best moved to, Lynch Mob or Warrant, and I was actually going to be bold and simply move myself but I thought comments may be useful; the best I found was this, this, this, this and this. If at all, this seems acceptable but I'm simply not sure if this is usual and expected coverage. Pinging the only still active user Dom497 and author LordDeathRay. SwisterTwister talk 23:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Better or more sources needed. Not every band member need his/her own article TypingInTheSky (talk) 03:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 09:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andoria-Mot[edit]

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

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