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. Well I'm not seeing any discussion on the talkpage so I'm closing this as Keep, if anyone wants to redirect I would simply ask they amend this AFD outcome after (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC) If one notes below, this AfD was withdrawn, and as such there is no result. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Amiibo[edit]

List of Amiibo (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 page was made in error. There was a discussion to split off content from Amiibo to make this page. There was no consensus, and thus this page was made by a rogue User:ViperSnake151. It should be deleted. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • Withdrawn by nominator - No one has supported the deletion, and the position of Sergecross73 makes a lot of sense to me. A redirect is a much simpler solution. As the nominator, I am withdrawing this nomination. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - There was an active discussion on the talk page, and there was no consensus to split it out at this time. (There was a weak consensus against splitting at the time.) Sergecross73 msg me 00:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Propose speedy close - Discussion occurring in multiple locations, rationale does not propose an outright deletion. And since when is being bold considered "rogue"? ViperSnake151  Talk  00:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Splitting a page when doing clearly lacks consensus goes beyond WP:BOLD. Sergecross73 made a similar comment on your talk page. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video games-related deletion discussions. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Oppose deletion. Consensus is only necessary when individual judgment is lacking. In this case, a separate list page makes sense. We already have list pages for TV episodes. Let's keep the Amiibo list page, too. — Asgardiator ^{Iä! Iä!} 21:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you are misunderstanding. The amiibo list is considered an essential part of Amiibo. There is/was a discussion on the matter of splitting the list into its own article. There was no consensus to split the page, but this one rogue user split the page and made List of Amiibo despite the opposition. Individual judgement does not override a discussion where there was no consensus to split. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Road, Inc.[edit]

Amber Road, Inc. (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 reliable sources for notability, plus promotional writing. Two minor notices in trade journals , about its acquisition of another non-notable firm. Article in a city bizjournal, which are notorious for reprinting any press release they get sent. As for promotionalism "Amber Road evokes images of trade throughout history and more accurately embodies the nature of the company's business" extensive use of the word "solutions", no no experienced npov editor here ever uses. Unnecessary adjectives of importance .Not worth fixing. DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 08:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 15:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources addressing the topic in detail (or even at all, in most cases) as required by WP:GNG. Googling turned up nothing useful. WP is not for WP:ADVERTISING. Msnicki (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as my searches found nothing useful aside from minor and unusable links at News and browser. SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Mestdagh[edit]

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

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

No evidence of meeting wp:athlete, unremarkable college career as a backup in a small school and the Belgian basketball league is not listed in WP:NBASKETBALL. A search for sources returns WP:ROUTINE coverage. Delete Pokerkiller (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: WP:NBASKETBALL includes "similar major professional sports league" as the ones named. I think the Belgian league fits. Arbor to SJ (talk) 00:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • But until the league is explicty mentioned as an exception, he needs to meet GNG which he doesn't. Nine games as a reserve in the top level league of Belgium a few years ago is not an exception. Pokerkiller (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Rikster2 (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I couldn't find much on him. Playing in the second tier Belgian league does not confer notability through NBASKETBALL, and his collegiate career was unremarkable. I am wikling to reconsider if someone can provide sources to show he passes GNG, but I'm just not seing them. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He had little impact in college and as much coverage. Even searching the Belgian newspapers (and that's speaking French and with rudimentary knowledge of Flemish) turns up few results. The WP:NBASKETBALL issue is moot as all articles have to meet GNG whatever the guideline (which only assumes coverage). --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I don't see sufficient independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gandhi's Cookbook[edit]

Gandhi's Cookbook (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 to meet notability guidlines for WP:MUSIC. Kelly ^hi! 22:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The group just doesn't seem notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable enough to warrant an article of its own. Kierzek (talk) 02:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 17:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable judging by the sources. Elspamo4 (talk) 12:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I see no better coverage to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 15 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Search for a Supermodel[edit]

Search for a Supermodel (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'm not sure if this can be improved or is notable as my searches found nothing with the best being the IMDb link at Italian Wiki and I'm not seeing a good move target. This has hardly changed much less improved since September 2006 so the time is now for attention. SwisterTwister talk 21:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable show on national network; hasn't really changed in nine years because the show was canceled twelve years ago (and pretty much had all its wind sucked up by Australia's Next Top Model), but notability doesn't expire. Nate • (chatter) 03:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mrschimpf Can this be improved is the question though. SwisterTwister talk 04:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I'd imagine there's not many sources considering A) It didn't last very long, and B) No one barely ever used the internet in those days so I'd imagine books and newspapers are the only sources out there on this, personally I think it should be kept and improved . –Davey2010^Talk 23:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per Davey2010, article is most likely notable and can be improved. MrWooHoo (talk) 00:00, 18 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Coughlan (football)[edit]

Tom Coughlan (football) (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 page discusses a former chairman, for a period of about 16 months (between 2008-2010), of an Irish football club. It gives a very brief, one line background, stating that he unsuccessfully ran for the Dáil/Irish parliament. The vast majority of the page discusses his relatively short tenure as owner of Cork City FC. Though it made national news, Coughlan has rarely been mentioned in the media since (or before). I believe that it lacks the required Wikipedia:Notability to warrant a page on Wikipedia.

The article was created at a time when his running of the club was hugely controversial, in 2009. This article has been criticised by editors of being edited/vandalised by both Coughlan's supporters and critics. Most of the edits took place during the height of the controversy, from the middle of 2009 until the beginning for 2010. For that reason, I believe that the page lacks a Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view.

Since Cork City was taken over from Coughlan by a new supporters' group, the editing has come to an almost complete stop. There have been two edits in 2015 and there were none at all in 2014. No real extra information has been added, about his life prior or subsequent to Cork City. There has also been very little news on Coughlan since his departure from the club, bar consequences of his management (eg, his restriction as a company director - mentioned briefly here: http://www.irishtimes.com/business/companies/struggle-continues-for-irish-soccer-clubs-both-on-and-off-the-pitch-1.2246118). Therefore, I think it suffers from "recentism", for disproportionately focussing on this period as it was a hot topic in Irish football news.

For these above reasons, I believe that the page should be deleted. Paz-CCFC (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. No valid reason has been given for deletion. Once notable, always notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Was Coughlan a notable figure to begin with? Are Irish football chairpersons or minor, unsuccessful election candidates generally notable to warrant a Wikipedia page? I do not think so. Some such as Oliver Byrne might, as he had been involved in football in an official capacity for a number of decades, including his time as chairman of Shelbourne FC. Coughlan has only been involved in football for a fraction of that time. His period in charge of the club certainly is notable, which is reflected by its inclusion in the Cork City FC page, but I do not believe that Coughlan himself is. Paz-CCFC (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - article has several references that meet WP:GNG standards. I'm not sure what the basis of the deletion nomination is. Nfitz (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not notable as a businessman or as a football administrator, at most redirect to Cork City F.C.. GiantSnowman 09:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Article cites multiple national level sources discussing his involvement in football in particular. Appears to meet GNG from these. Should be noted that the nomination does not consider WP:NTEMP. Fenix down (talk) 11:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Technically a speedy keep because the nominator hasn't stated a valid reason for deletion. I understand your unhappiness with the article but the subject got lots of coverage in Ireland's national newspapers (and therefore meets WP:SECONDARY). If you don't think the article meets WP:NPOV, then please be WP:BOLD and change it, discussing on the talk pages any controversial points. Fiachra10003 (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable enough — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.65.82 (talk) 22:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Meets WP:SECONDARY and meets WP:GNG per Nfitz and Fenix. MrWooHoo (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Creek Designs[edit]

Indian Creek Designs (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 reliable third-party sources to establish notability of this company. Kelly ^hi! 19:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with nom: no sources out there. New Media Theorist (talk) 02:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as my searches simply found nothing good and this has actually existed since May 2005 after being started by an IP with hardly much significant change since then. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 14 September 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 done by User:Jimfbleak today. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Independence[edit]

Morgan Independence (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 third-party reliable sources to establish notability of this product. Kelly ^hi! 19:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Several minutes' Googling produces zero accounts of the product.--A bit iffy (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteI agree Attaboy (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Already deleted per Speedy criteria A7 (Non notable corp) and G11 (blatant advertising). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:02, 13 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 00:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No Revolution (Darkbuster album)[edit]

No Revolution (Darkbuster album) (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)

Procedural renomination, as the album was released after all commentary in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Revolution (Darkbuster album) Courcelles (talk) 18:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging Everymorning and Jbhunley, the participants in AFD 1. Courcelles (talk) 18:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Courcelles (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Courcelles (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NALBUM. Jbh^Talk 18:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Jbhunley. The album has now been released, but there is still very little reliable source coverage of it, not enough, I think, to meet WP:NALBUM. Everymorning (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable enough. Kierzek (talk) 02:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and then retarget the title over to Darkbuster#Discography since the album, by itself, isn't really notable CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per everybody above, article is non-notable and should be deleted. MrWooHoo (talk) 00:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.  Sandstein  08:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greg McKeown (author)[edit]

Greg McKeown (author) (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)

Person that does not meet WP:GNG. The list of public speaking engagements is unreferenced. With a couple of exceptions, the "Journal articles" section is a collection of blog posts. The content about his book is mostly promotional in nature, as few if any edtiorial reviews are provided. A snapshot with Tony Blair is offered without context or verifiability. This topic includes a plug for McKeown's executive and leaderhip training services, and claims he's a "social innovator", whatever that might be.

I'm not finding references to support the claims made in this article, so I don't think toning it down and editing is a viable alternative to deletion -- the subject simply doesn't meet WP:GNG.

NB: I've nominated this author's book, Essentialism: The Disciplined Pursuit of Less. Mikeblas (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to try to clean this up since I do think that he may be notable, however the article as it was written was absolutely terrible, to the point where I'd say it's a great example as to why you should not pay to get your article written for you. There's no way that this article wasn't written by someone without a conflict of interest. I've removed the list of "journal articles" since Mike is right - most of them were glorified blog posts. I've changed this to just "articles" and named a few places he's published, since traditionally we don't list every article someone has written - typically these are only listed if the articles are frequently cited in various RS. I'm also going to remove some of the pictures, since they just emphasize the puffy tone to the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've boiled it down to its essentials. I'm somewhat leery of leaving some of the sources behind, as many of them are just dates for newspaper publications. Now this doesn't mean that they can't be useful since sources don't have to necessarily be online, but given that the article's creator has used some pretty unreliable sources in an attempt to source the article, I have to say that I'm kind of uneasy about how much usable content might be in these sources. I'll leave it up to the closing admin as to whether or not we should use them, based on how WP:PUFFY the article initially was and the usage of various primary and otherwise unusable sources in both this article and the book's article. Hopefully I'll be able to find more sources to make this a moot point. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've managed to pull together just enough coverage for his book to where we could probably argue for a keep on his writing. I'd recommend having an article for McKeown rather than for the book since some of the book sources are sort of more about him in general rather than the book specific (ie, they talk about his idea rather than specifically the book) and it's usually easier to justify an article for a person rather than for a book. I don't think that we need individual articles in this situation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sorry, Tokyogirl - you gave it a good try, but I just don't see this as meeting GNG. This person has a book whose topic wavers between business advice and self-help, which has gotten a few minor reviews. The Chronicle of Higher Ed review is part of their blog. I admit I don't know how to measure his award as a young leader from World Economic Forum in Davos, but it doesn't appear high in any searches I do so I have to take that as not being of great importance. One article (the BYU journal) says he wrote another book that was a bestseller, but when you look at it he appears to be a secondary author [1], and I can't verify the "best seller" part of it. 142.254.111.113 (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I can't verify "best seller", either. AFAICT, the books were top-ten on one of the subordinate NYT lists, but not a best seller. I've edited the article to reflect this. -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepI think the article is fine to keep, but I actually think it was better in the old versions. Now there seems to be little helpful information. I think it just needs to be re-written so that its not puffy like Tokyogirl said. I was able to find the reference for the NYT times best seller http://www.nytimes.com/best-sellers-books/2014-05-04/advice-how-to-and-miscellaneous/list.html. Looks like it was number 7 May 2014. I also think the Young Global Leader is bigger than you think. Let me see what I can do with the article at getting some reliable sources so that it fits notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.97.19 (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - seems borderline notable (although article was compromised by massive COI edits), so keep to be on the safe side. -Zanhe (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Appears to be fine now. COI edits seem to have been mitigated. Still needs more/better references.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:a601:536:9e01:98f8:9b6b:6881:62b6 (talk • contribs) 2015-09-04T10:05:25

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just to say that I cycled back around and looked at the edited version, but my !vote does not change. LaMona (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, i am disapointed with myself for not having gotten involved with the afd on his book Essentialism as i have found numerous reviews which would lead to the book's notability (although some/all? may be deemed too brief and trivial:)) ie. [2] - The Irish Times of 19 May 2014, [3] - The Dallas Morning News of 3 May 2014, [4] - Buffalo & Erie County Public Library shows a review by the School Library Journal , [5] - Yoga Teacher Magazine (Vol 2 , Issue 1), [6] - The Christian Science Monitor of 1 April 2014, [7] - Publishers Weekly , [8] - review of audio version by AudioFile, [9] - Becker's Hospital Review of 21 April 2015. Maybe, it can be resurrected? Coolabahapple (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per references above, article meets WP:GNG. MrWooHoo (talk) 00:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep with a nod towards TokyoGirl's efforts. I absolutely understand the nomination, but I agree the book is just notable enough when added to the author's other appearances to confer GNG notability. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:51, 19 September 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. Never close this early but High Schools are notable as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luther Burbank High School (Texas)[edit]

Luther Burbank High School (Texas) (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 Action Hero 17:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all high schools are notable per wp:outcomes Pokerkiller (talk) 18:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I added a source. News articles show that it exists. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:52, 10 September 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 per WP:CSD#G12 as a direct copy of the copyrighted text at http://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/community/people/stephan-chambers. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Chambers[edit]

Stephan Chambers (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 Notability Action Hero 17:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Notability is not established. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment No opinion on notability, but I nominated it for CSD as a blatant copyright violation. EricEnfermero (Talk) 21:17, 10 September 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 Cross (Justice album). Any one wanting Merges should obviously start a discussion on the tp (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom (Justice song)[edit]

Phantom (Justice song) (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, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Prodded and prod removed. Richhoncho (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge / Redirect over to Cross (Justice album) given that the song's known in the context of that album, with its own article not being justified in my opinion CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as I'm not seeing anything for a solid separate article. SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 15 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 00:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Seeley[edit]

Christopher Seeley (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)

Another mayor of a small town of 1,000 residents who was elected mayor at a young age. All sources are wp:routine coverage all local politicians gets, fails wp:blp1e delete Pokerkiller (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete, not notable enough to warrant an article of its own. Kierzek (talk) 02:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Week Keep - WP:POLOUTCOMES suggests that traditionally, "politicians who (a) represent a historic first" are kept. According to List of the youngest mayors in the United States, the subject is one of eight mayors elected at the age of 18. While many of the sources are of the routine nature, his name is often mentioned in articles about other young candidates running for office. Enos733 (talk) 03:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Mayor of a very small town. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete His only claim to fame is being elected at age 18, and that doesn't seem to have gotten any coverage outside of his immediate local area. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. --MelanieN (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No coverage whatsoever and should be deleted. MrWooHoo (talk) 00:06, 18 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 00:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Mack (mayor)[edit]

Shane Mack (mayor) (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)

Former mayor of a town of 600 individuals, only notable for his age that he was elected. All news stories are passing mentions, fails wp:blp1e delete Pokerkiller (talk) 17:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, another not notable enough to warrant an article of its own. Kierzek (talk) 02:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unfortunately as there's not much and stories like happen quite frequently and, if needed, he could simply be mentioned at the town's article but I'm not seeing much need for this. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Mayor of a very small settlement which barely even qualifies for the title of village. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing in Wikipedia's inclusion standards grants an automatic notability freebie to the youngest, oldest or other-superlativest mayor of a particular place, if that place isn't one whose mayors would already be eligible for an article under WP:NPOL #3 — and two articles isn't enough to demonstrate that he passes that. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. That reminds me of the guy who won a local Mr. Leather contest 14 years ago and still wears his badge and sash every day. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Get out of my head, bear brother! (*grin*) Bearcat (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Seeley (2nd nomination), article isn't notable and should be deleted. MrWooHoo (talk) 00:07, 18 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 00:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Juhl[edit]

Sam Juhl (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)

Mayor of a town of 1200 individuals only notable for being elected at age 18, fails all other relevant notabilty guidelines, especially wp:blp1e Pokerkiller (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable enough to warrant an article of its own; too trivial. Kierzek (talk) 02:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Week Keep - WP:POLOUTCOMES suggests that traditionally, "politicians who (a) represent a historic first" are kept. According to List of the youngest mayors in the United States, the subject is one of eight mayors elected at the age of 18. Elected officials should not be seen as mere "trivia" because of the important role they play in developing public policies. - --Enos733 (talk) 16:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure that is meant for mid level politicians, not small town ones Pokerkiller (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Mayor of a very small town. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - even if true, it's still trivial. Bearian (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Mayor of a very small town. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• If a place was sitting on the borderline of an NPOL pass or fail (e.g. the mayor of a place that fell short of but was close to the 50K criterion for mayors, or a place that fell short of but was close to the "metropolitan global city" criterion for city councillors), then "youngest-ever holder of this office" might be enough to tip the balance (though that would still be no guarantee). But nothing in Wikipedia's inclusion rules for politicians grants an automatic freebie to the youngest-ever holder of office in a small town — every city and town in existence will always have had at least one mayor who was younger than any of the others, and then one who was older than any of the others too — so a criterion like that would mean that every single place on earth that has ever had mayors (of which there have been hundreds of thousands) would automatically confer guaranteed wiki-inclusion rights on at least two of its former mayors. So that can't be an inclusion criterion by itself, for a town that's this small, unless (very maybe) there's a lot more coverage of it than has been shown here. As well, the "historic firsts" thing in WP:POLOUTCOMES is actually an outdated criterion which has been deprecated by evolving consensus, and should actually be removed from OUTCOMES. (Even the first-ever LGBT mayor of a small town — which is much closer to what that criterion was originally designed to cover than "youngest" is — doesn't automatically get a Wikipedia article for that anymore, if the town isn't large enough to get its mayors over NPOL the conventional way and the person can't claim overarching significance like "first LGBT person elected to political office in his entire country".) So there's simply not enough substance here to make him more notable than the norm under NPOL just for happening to be a town's youngest-ever mayor. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Seeley (2nd nomination), article is non-notable and is very trivial. MrWooHoo (talk) 00:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  19:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Maria Gabriela of Orléans-Braganza[edit]

Princess Maria Gabriela of Orléans-Braganza (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 relative of an airplane crash victim. Despite claims to the contrary[10], there's no mention of her at either of the external pages listed as sources[11][12]. DrKiernan (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC) Amended DrKiernan (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - While I don't read Portugese, I'm pretty confident from using Google translate that the external link given in the article does indeed list her as the daughter of Prince Antônio of Orléans-Braganza, just as stated in the article [13]. I stand by my "claims to the contrary", and think that DrKiernan has failed to actually read the website in question before commenting on what information it does or does not contain. (Note, this is in no way an argument that she is notable or the page should be kept. I have no opinion on that as I haven't done any searches to determine whether she is notable, and don't plan to do any. I'm just standing by my assertion that the article wasn't eligible for deletion by BLPPROD). Calathan (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That link is not given in the article. It would be helpful in future if you add the sources you find independently rather than leaving the article bereft of them. And, no, I didn't read pages not linked from the article, though I did do a web search. DrKiernan (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When the front page of a website is given as an external link, it is generally safe to assume that the intent is that content somewhere on that site is relevant to the article, not that the front page itself has the relevant content. It was trivial to find a page on the website that did have content relevant to the article (it took me only about 1 minute even without being able to read Portuguese). And yes, that is still the same website given as an external link even if you have to click twice to get to a page that mentions the article subject. Calathan (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I said, I was unable to find it, so I don't think it is that simple. DrKiernan (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the information is not given on the frontpage, the frontpage should not be given as a reference. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 21:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, she would be relevant if Brazil was still a monarchy, but now it isn't and there is no other claim to fame for her according to the article. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 21:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of countries do not govern under a monarchy but still maintain a royal family who retain significant notability. I do believe the threshold for notability is whether or not a country operates as a monarchy -- in fact there are very few true monarchies left in the world. Mkdw^talk 17:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Brazil is not one of them. The whole imperial family was expelled from the country by the first republican government, they returned only after WWII. The members of the royal family hardly ever appear in public, much less in the press, do not own any large estates (all imperial property was nationalized), and do not have any political influence. The monarchy was voted down in 1993 with only 13 % of the vote in a nationwide referendum. They are very much restricted to their own "walled garden." Even the celebrity tabloids ignore them almost completely. The subject studies PR at Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro so that, I suppose, she could make a little money in advertising later. Her father, the prince, is a civil engineer. Just ordinary people... Kraxler (talk) 18:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep. WP maintains articles on almost all royal houses, whether currently ruling or not. Her father is second in line to be pretender of the Brazilian throne. She is a princess, and member of a royal house, with her father being second in line. --Cagepanes (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• There's no source for those assertions, other than wikipedia. DrKiernan (talk) 21:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

::*I'm guessing you haven't looked then? A quick google search reveals this, which shows her ancestry quite plainly. --Cagepanes (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I've looked, as I said above, but I did not find. Notability is not inherited: sources that say only that she is the daughter of someone else are insufficient to prove notability. DrKiernan (talk) 07:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

::::Yet she has a title, is royal, is from a royal house, and is a Princess. Those make her notable as WP covers those extensively. Would you also suggest deleting Prince Harry's article? By the same vein, he is only notable for being part of a royal house. --Cagepanes (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Harry is independently notable. Maria Gabriela is not. See prior discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Tatiana of Leiningen, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Maria of Romania, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Aristidis-Stavros of Greece and Denmark, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Achileas-Andreas of Greece and Denmark, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Philippos of Greece and Denmark (2nd nomination), etc. We don't keep articles of people who are only known because of their parentage or one event. DrKiernan (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there can't be any doubt that she's the daughter of Prince Antônio of Orléans-Braganza, and sister of one of the victims of AF 447. Besides that, I can't find any in-depth coverage in independent sources that would establish notability. According to her article in the Portuguese Wikipedia she hasn't finished her university studies yet. Anyway, she claims to be a princess, and is considered one in monarchist circles, but legally there's no nobility in Brazil, noble titles were abolished after Brazil became a republic in 1889. Kraxler (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There's two issues here: (b) Is she a member of a royal house and (b) does that make her notable? (a) The Almanach de Gotha, normally considered authoritative, lists her (see http://www.almanachdegotha.org/id8.html) within the Orleans-Braganza family and is generally consistent with the Wikipedia article (except that the Almanach spells Iolanda as "Yolanda"). (b) Contrary to what DrKiernan says above, WP:NOTINHERITED has a longstanding carveout for members of royal houses. This young lady's case is a fairly extreme test case for the carveout - a long-extinguished throne, a very junior member - but the rule stands and there's no compelling reason to WP:IGNOREALLRULES here. In my view we would be better served by reconsidering the policy rather than arguing about this case. Fiachra10003 (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The exception at WP:NOTINHERITED isn't a rule: that page is an essay. The guideline is at WP:INVALIDBIO and WP:BLPRELATED. The policy is at WP:BLP1E. DrKiernan (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, but certain aspects of essays, including this point, have generally been accepted at AfD. That specific essay guideline has been cited in the past at AfDs and there's quite a number of articles on members of royal houses that really should be reconsidered if we ignore those precedents. Fiachra10003 (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring OTHERSTUFF for the time being, please clarify whether the AfDs where the essay was quoted were on subjects related to reigning royal houses with a claim (whatever flimsy) to succession, or whether they were on subjects related to pretenders to long-gone thrones and crowns. Kraxler (talk) 14:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. DrKiernan's points are all on-topic. Individual doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nomination. Brazil is no longer a monarchy so her relevance is very much debatable. In addition she has no established notability in her own right. --Re5x (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to her father, Prince Antônio of Orléans-Braganza. Members of non-reigning royal families may be notable if there are sufficent reliable sources discussing them, for example, if they are well known as socialites. But sources about Princess Maria Gabriela appear to be few, or at least few have been provided and those that have been provided say almost nothing about her. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Redirect - per Metropolitan90 and above users. Brazil is no longer a monarchy and there are very little references provided. MrWooHoo (talk) 00:15, 18 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 00:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2017 BWF World Championships[edit]

2017 BWF World Championships (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)

Probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. The "official website" doesn't lead to a website for this championship, but to the 2015 championships. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Articles for World championships in significant sports are often created years in advance like 2021 World Aquatics Championships, 2021 World Championships in Athletics, 2023 World Men's Handball Championship. They will obviously get articles later in any case if the World doesn't collapse or something like that. 2017 BWF World Championships is the next World championship in the sport and linked in ((World badminton champs)). When the host has been selected there is something to write and fans who want to know it. They can find additional information in the sources. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @PrimeHunter: The 2021 IAAF and 2021 FINA championships are presently under discussion at AfD, and will probably be kept, given the amount of coverage presently available. The 2023 world handball championships, on the other hand, look like a VERY STRONG candidate for an AfD discussion. In these discussions about future sports events we have to balance WP:CRYSTAL, WP:EVENT, WP:GNG and common sense. We just deleted an article about the 2032 Summer Olympics, and it was a very solid decision. In the end, it comes down to whether there is really anything of substance to say. The bidding and selection process for future Olympics and future FIFA World Cups has become a very big deal. Not so much for most other sport championship selection processes. See my comment below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Worth note that both the articles that you said were presently under discussion at AfD resulted in keep.RonSigPi (talk) 02:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and comment. Per WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. As for the 2021 and 2023 events, when articles get found by editors like myself, they get nominated for deletion and are usually soon gone. Like 2022 Ryder Cup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamJE (talk • contribs) 11:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy for now, as textbook WP:CRYSTAL-gazing. As an analogy, we know precisely when and where the 2028 U.S. presidential elections will be held, and much more, but even so there is as yet inadequate reliable speculation on the topic to support a meaningful encyclopedic article. Here, sources (eg [14], [15], [16]) seem to have practically no non-promotional material besides the single sentence which currently composes the article. As preparations advance, notability will come; probably 3-12 months will suffice for adequate sources to emerge. FourViolas (talk) 04:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as PrimeHunter says. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 20:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 00:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 00:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 00:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 00:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. The existing coverage of this low-profile championship does not justify a stand-alone article at this time. The schedule of future BWF championships can easily be incorporated into a table in the parent BWF article. And, no, comparing the BWF badminton championships to the future Olympics, or future IAAF or FINA world championships is not an apt analogy, as those events receive a great deal more coverage by an order of magnitude or greater. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC) Struck delete !vote per discussion below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Badminton is a big sport in many countries, especially in Asia. See for example [17] about China. You are American and I trust it's very small there. BWF World Championships#Medal table shows a single American medal out of 442, versus 323 of 2036 at IAAF World Championships in Athletics#Medal totals since 1983, and 540 of 2576 at FINA World Aquatics Championships#All-time medal since 1973. 2017 BWF World Championships is the next World championship and not several championships away like the other examples mentioned here. Keeping those and deleting this would look like systemic bias. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above - Had this article had no sources I'd of gone Delete but obviously there's sourcing here all of which confirm the year (Although 1 confirms the actual date it would be nice if they all did!) but anyway notability does seem to be there so will have to go with Keep. –Davey2010^Talk 22:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Davey2010: You imply that the subject satisfies the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Can you please identify and link to the significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources as required by GNG? My cursory review of the article shows that two of the three linked sources are either national or international badminton federations (i.e., not independent). The third source is an obscure website that covers international games events; that's a pretty slender thread to claim that GNG is satisfied. If there is significant coverage in other independent sources, please identify them. I'm happy to change my !vote if you or anyone else can produce the significant coverage in independent sources. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep World championships of an Olympic sport where a host has already been selected. A simple Google search for "2017 BWF World Championships Glasgow" yields a number of articles. The results are of varying quality and some certainly have issues, but plenty is there to support an article. This is not even close.RonSigPi (talk) 02:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @RonSigPi: You said "A simple Google search for '2017 BWF World Championships Glasgow' yields a number of articles." Okay. Fair enough. Please link to three of those articles (from three different sources) from your Google search that represent significant coverage in reliable, independent sources per WP:GNG. If you can list those three sources in bullet-point fashion immediately below, I will be happy to change my !vote to "keep". Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to pick these sources apart, but you asked for 3 so here are the first 3 I came across that I think meet what you are asking for:

• Source 1 - [18] - Daily Record - major Scottish newspaper/tabloid.
• Source 2 - [19] - Sports specific website with extensive Olympic sports coverage.
• Source 3 - [20] - Arm of Xinhua News Agency - China media company.

RonSigPi (talk) 03:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what to make of InsideTheGames.biz, but I will certainly accept The Daily Record and Xinhua as independent reliable sources. Neither article is exactly a feature article on the subject, but you have found reliable, independent sources that discuss an international championship that is the next one in its series. I hope these latter two make their way into the present article (which is a little light on content and sources). Please note that my vote in this AfD is influenced by the fact that 2017 is the next BWF championship in the BWF series; given the depth of coverage, I would probably continue to maintain that it is too soon for articles on 2019 and 2021. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per discussion with RonSigPi above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per RonSigPi and Davey2010, this article is the next BWF championship in the series. MrWooHoo (talk) 00:16, 18 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 00:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Torches to Triggers[edit]

Torches to Triggers (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)

There seems to be no significant coverage of this local Calgary band. The article was previously deleted on 4 April 2014 by Tawker under A7: as an article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. That still appears to be true. Please see the guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles.  --Bejnar (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Flat Out (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I simply see nothing to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable and fails WP:GNG. MrWooHoo (talk) 00:17, 18 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 00:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Martavious Odoms[edit]

Martavious Odoms (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)

Insufficiently notable college wide receiver who did not play at professional level, received no major college awards (not even first- or second-team all-conference recognition), and did not rank among the top 50 NCAA receivers in any given year. He showed a lot of promise as a freshman (when the article was created) but the promise never materialized. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NGRIDIRON, and WP:NCOLLATH. The article relies principally on the university web profile (not independent) and an ESPN profile (something every college player has). The only source cited that actually focuses on Odoms is from AnnArbor.com and was a routine injury announcement. Cbl62 (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator's rationale and comments. Does not satisfy the specific notability guidelines for college athletes per WP:NCOLLATH (no major awards) or professional football players per WP:NGRIDIRON (never played in an NFL or CFL regular season game). There is insufficient significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As the article is written, I agree with the nominator. Sources do not seem to indicate notability to me. The news search didn't look promising, mostly fan sites or non-third-party Michigan sites. "Could have been notable" does not equate to "notable" --Paul McDonald (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom and above users article is non-notable. MrWooHoo (talk) 00:18, 18 September 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 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC Second Round. Consensus is this article doesn't belong, but some good argument that content about the match may well belong at this target. Courcelles (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia v Saudi Arabia (2018 FIFA World Cup qualifying)[edit]

Malaysia v Saudi Arabia (2018 FIFA World Cup qualifying) (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)

An abandoned match, regardless of the reason, is not in and of itself a notable occurrence. The match deserves mention in the AFC Second Round qualifying article and could deserve mention in the articles for the national teams of Malaysia and Saudi Arabia, but not a standalone article. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 15:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 15:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 15:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 15:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 16:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as no notability; at most redirect (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Montenegro v Russia (UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying)). GiantSnowman 17:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would argue that this match is a defining match in Malaysian football. This incident has been deemed by the Malaysian press at least as the most embarassing in Malaysian football. Perhaps the match itself is not notable. This match was abandoned due to Malaysian fans protesting against their Football Association. The protests did not primarily start due to the visiting team gaining a lead in the game. At worst. A mention in the article of Malaysia national team should be made. Not needed in Saudi Arabia's though.--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 03:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also Denmark v Sweden (UEFA Euro 2008 qualifying) was nominated for deletion but was kept due to it being notable in Danish/Scandinavian football although fewer people are involved there. This is the same to Malaysian football at least.--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not necessarily a valid argument. I agree that mention in 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC Second Round, 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC), and Malaysia national football team are appropriate, but not a stand-alone article. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 23:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Matches being abandoned due to crowd trouble are sadly common and therefore not particularly notable. See also: WP:NOTNEWS. Number 57 08:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge - there is some useful information here that would benefit some already existing articles, however, there is little to suggest that this match is worthy of its own article. Spiderone 16:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It would be noteworthy to consider if systemic bias is in play here. Abandoned matches in Asian international football is a much rarer event. Why would a abandoned UEFA match (Denmark v. Sweden) be more important than an Asian World Cup qualifier?--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and Merge to 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC Second Round - no reason the incident/game can't be covered in detail in that article. Nfitz (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and Merge I agree with Nfitz, redirect the link and combine the information with the mother article. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable... JMHamo (talk) 21:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable and unnecessary. MrWooHoo (talk) 00:19, 18 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 00:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Gibbons[edit]

Brendan Gibbons (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)

Insufficiently notable collegiate placekicker who did not play at professional level and who received no major college awards (not even first- or second-team all-conference recognition). Fails WP:GNG, WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH. The only significant coverage he received in reliable, independent media outlets relates principally to unproven (at least in a criminal court) allegations that he sexually assaulted a female student which raise WP:BLP1E concerns. Cbl62 (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.

• Delete - Non-notable college football player: delete per nominator's rationale and comments. Subject oes not satisfy the relevant specific notability guidelines for college athletes per WP:NCOLLATH or professional football players per WP:NGRIDIRON, and there is insufficient significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Regarding GNG, what significant coverage there is was found on the athletic department website or the university student newspaper -- neither of which satisfies the "independent source" criteria. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm not finding any measure of notability here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.65.82 (talk) 22:31, 17 September 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. My SALT shaker has also been located Courcelles (talk) 00:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

White Hill Production[edit]

White Hill Production (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:CORP. To quote from the previous AFD: "I'm not sure this is a notable organization. All the notability asserted is inherited from the films it's either producing or distributing (which is a big difference)."

CSD as re-creation of deleted material was declined as sufficiently different, so I am nominating it for AfD again Fiddle Faddle 14:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and WP:SALT

It would seem to me that the claims made for this purported production company are just blatantly false.

In previously deleted version of the article, "White Hill Production" claimed credits for real movies including:

• Drishyam (2015 film)
• Bin Roye
• Sardaar Ji
• Roy (film)
• Eh Janam Tumhare Lekhe

and many more.

A simple google search - try this - will demonstrate that this purported production company has nothing whatsoever to do with those films, nor is it a company that distributes them overseas.

--Shirt58 (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I did some research and the company does appear to be real. Best evidence is at IMDB, which has them distributing numerous films. It does sound like they are riding on the coattails of the films they distribute.New Media Theorist (talk) 03:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as my searches found nothing good at all. SwisterTwister talk 07:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

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

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

And through WP:INDAFD: "White Hill Production"

• Delete for yes, they distribute and produce films but being a distributor or a production company fails WP:ORG if the company itself lacks coverage-beyond-mentions in reliable sources. It has the mentions, but no in-depth coverage. Maybe in a few years. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this company is not known also The article does not have enough resources(Toomass (talk) 00:26, 14 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KohraM[edit]

KohraM (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 website, no sources for the finding, three of the listed sources are the website itself while the fourth is a PR piece and anything on the net is similar regurgitated PR pieces, created by an SEO marketeer. —SpacemanSpiff 13:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 13:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 13:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable and promotion piece only. Kierzek (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No significant coverage found to affirm notability. I searched Google, and the Google custom search [21] and searchindiannews.in [22] as recommended by WikiProject India. Altamel (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above.--Human3015^TALK  18:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there's simply nothing to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:28, 15 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Uniontown, Pennsylvania[edit]

List of tallest buildings in Uniontown, Pennsylvania (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)

A number of other such lists have been deleted through AfD - these buildings aren't tall enough and the town not big enough to merit a standalone list IMO Gbawden (talk) 13:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Places-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable enough to warrant an article. Kierzek (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, or merge with Uniontown, Pennsylavnia article. There are similar sized cities with similar sized buildings with standalone articles. Jjscully 15:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 50,000 to 100,000 yes, but 10,000? Wp:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Pokerkiller (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • searching quickly already found one similar Jjscully (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A list of non-notable buildings for a town of barely 10,000 people, a merge is trivial and will create undue weight so it's not recommended. Pokerkiller (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Poaching some material from this page to put over in the town's page is fine, but I think this article here should be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unfortunately as there's not much and, if needed, anything notable and interesting can mentioned at Uniontown's article. SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not a big enough town to have such a list. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's not a major town, so I don't see why this is needed. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per everyone else. Bondegezou (talk) 14:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow delete speedily executed to to obvious WP:BLP concerns. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Fish[edit]

Pamela Fish (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)

Apparent WP:ATTACK bio that fails WP:BLP1E.- MrX 13:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC) - MrX 13:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a textbook attack page, giving an entirely one-sided view of its topic. No attempt at presenting a WP:NPOV Neiltonks (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems just to focus on a handful of negative aspects. Her career cannot just consist of a couple of cases that went wrong. (In one of which the outcome was only changed after developments in DNA testing). But even if the rest of her work is exemplary, still may well not pass notability. Unless it can be expanded with more context & demonstrate greater notability, should not be retained as it stands. Eagleash (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mr. X's comments and rationale above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Person is only the subject of some very scant and mostly local sources for screwing up test results in criminal cases, has done nothing else to garner attention and remains a low-profile individual. Straight-up WP:BLP1E. Tarc (talk) 14:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. ukexpat (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the editor who first raised the concern. The Chicago Tribune is usually very reliable, and there doesn't seem to be a reliably-published "other side of the story", but BLP1E suggests the only appropriate topic would be Pamela Fish controversy or something, and coverage clearly doesn't support that. FourViolas (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This could perhaps be merged into a more neutral Chicago Police Department crime lab article, but certainly does not belong here as a standalone biographical article, as it obviously fails BLP1E, but does meet the standard for a deletable attack article. -- The Anome (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:ATTACK. (I'm OK with Snow delete, too, but immediacy isn't really an issue since this has been around for nine years.) Appropriately sourced and weighted material that touches on the subject could be included Murder of Lori Roscetti which likely passes WP:EVENT (see, for example, this website and GBooks). - Location (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notability is questionable as well (not sure this article is truly attacking her). Paris1127 (talk) 19:49, 10 September 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. (non-admin closure) MONARCH♔ 23:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strike off Fighting Championships[edit]

Strike off Fighting Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not appear to be a notable mixed martial arts organization. While it appears to have been broadcast on Comcast Sports Network TV (which as far as I know is actually a lesser-known cable network), I couldn't actually find much coverage for the organization other than confirmations that is indeed broadcast (strangely, from primary sources rather than Comcast itself). As for the award, I couldn't find much about it and from the looks of thing the award isn't one that would grant notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I speedied this earlier, no independent sources, no evidence of notability, clearly intended to promote the event Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This has been speeded as Db-promo several times but keeps getting recreated. Clearly by the same person with different user names who also likes to delete tags. That said - in addition to the promotional intent the MMA organisation does not have the sources to claim notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It appears that the article has already been speedily deleted multiple times. Should this AfD be closed as delete, I recommend that the title be salted. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:17, 11 September 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 as A7. WP:HAMMER also applies, obviously. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Third c++ game[edit]

Third c++ game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about a non-notable future game. Fails WP:GNG. - MrX 12:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete meets WP:A7 and WP:G11 So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 13:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable at all. Kierzek (talk) 02:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This looks like a joke, to be honest. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I found nothing to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 15 September 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Territorial Army Parade Ground[edit]

Territorial Army Parade Ground (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)

Don't believe this meets WP:GNG. CricketArchives confirms that this stadium exists but thats it. No indication of Notability Gbawden (talk) 09:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep hosted a first class cricket game (which is the WP:NCRIC guideline for players). But not surprisingly, online coverage of 1970s Indian cricket is poor. The-Pope (talk) 12:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is general consensus is grounds which have hosted first class cricket matches are notable enough and deserves article. Ranji Trophy is primary and prestigious domestic tournament of India.--Human3015^TALK  18:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per usual practice regarding first-class cricket. AusLondonder (talk) 08:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per the Cricket Project's guideline for inclusion. The article had a failed-verification tag that (in effect) questioned whether the grounds ever did stage a first-class match. But whoever added the original reference had mis-typed the code number at the CricketArchive. It's been corrected and the tag has been removed. By the way, this same issue is being discussed in another AfD nomination, for Nehru Smarak Stadium. For some reason, this other nomination was not posted on the Cricket Project's Alert board. You might want to participate in that other discussion. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: if this ground hosted a first class cricket match, which it does seem to have done, I would say that it is notable. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per NewYorkActuary, although the article is still short notability now seems to have been established. Anotherclown (talk) 23:38, 12 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rampow technology[edit]

Rampow technology (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 product without independent sources. – Gilliam (talk) 08:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7: does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:52, 10 September 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 September 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 10:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there's hardly much info and my searches found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 14 September 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. Don't usually close this early but Company does appear to be notable as proven below, And as an aside I would ask AKS.9955 that they don't AFD articles 20 minutes after creation as it's bad faith (and in my books disruptive), 3 hours is fine, 20 minutes is not!. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amorino (company)[edit]

Amorino (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)

Company is not notable and no claim of notability. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 10:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 10:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 10:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 11:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Plenty of coverage out there: Le Figaro, L'Express, Le Monde, etc... Vrac (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see the article was sent to AFD 20 minutes after its creation, that's a bit excessive. Vrac (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Here's another source from The Wall Street Journal with six paragraphs. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:07, 10 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Tank Production and Losses - World War II[edit]

Russian Tank Production and Losses - World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:LISTCRUFT I think - I can't see the purpose of this article. Creating this page has been the authors only contribution. WP:TNT should be applied although I wouldn't restart the article Gbawden (talk) 09:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 10:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 10:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 10:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per A3 (no content). Plus there's already Soviet combat vehicle production during World War II, which includes tanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Content is better covered by Soviet combat vehicle production during World War II, but A10 cannot apply because this article is not recently created. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 12:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per Clarityfiend and sovereign°sentinel, the subject of this article is already covered in far more detail elsewhere. Anotherclown (talk) 08:42, 13 September 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 usually given to Indian films, shows, BLPs etc etc as sources are alot harder to find compared to say the UK or US (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kirumi[edit]

Kirumi (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)

Unreleased film that fails WP:GNG with no detailed secondary sources, just some promo images, an entry in a website database and a YouTube trailer. McGeddon (talk) 08:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 10:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 10:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

WP:INDAFD: Kirumi

director:(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)

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

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

• Strong Keep per filming being completed and available sourcing shows the production as meeting WP:GNG and thus WP:NFF. Sheesh... the stubby thing needs work and use of available sources yes, but it being incomplete and improvable is not a deletion rationale. Nominator, what WP:BEFORE did you attempt? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look around Google News but couldn't find anything that seemed reliable - I think I read that first one you linked, but dismissed it as a WP:NEWSPRIMARY interview with no byline which said its director was "a newcomer to the Tamil film industry". That second link seems to have some buzz around actors who are appearing, but are there any solid reliable sources about the film yet? This article has no byline and again has little to say about the film beyond quoting the director.

My deletion rationale is that it just doesn't meet WP:GNG. I did prod it as such, but an IP reverted it adding only a YouTube trailer. --McGeddon (talk) 11:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google news is woefully inadequate for Indian Media, in that it does not index it properly... their flaw, not ours. WP:NEWSPRIMARY does not state a director cannot speak about or be asked about his project, and a great deal of reliable Indian media is done by staffers and released without byline. And even if an accepted reliable source give us the required more-than-trivial information, you may still take it to WP:RSN and get the opinion of others. And since the article is not about the director, his being a newcomer is not the issue. Production coverage is. But yes, the original author shows inexperience. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I appreciate the problem of searching Indian media and will bear it in mind for future nominations. So have we got two non-WP:NEWSPRIMARY sources that cover the subject in any depth, or any NFILM shortcuts, yet? --McGeddon (talk) 13:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NFILM shortcuts? Okay, yes... it meets WP:NFF (paragraph 3), And with the addition of brief but more-than-trivial information to share with our readers, the article is already looking better. Hint: WP:SIGCOV (guideline) does not mandate WP:SUBSTANTIAL (not a guideline). More to do. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:GNG. Fairly good sourced coverage now. AusLondonder (talk) 08:57, 11 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent Stick[edit]

Intelligent Stick (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 brand name � (talk) 07:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 07:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 07:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - since an article for the parent company PQI Group does not exist, there is no way this would meet WP:GNG. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 12:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now as my searches found nothing to suggest better coverage. SwisterTwister talk 18:16, 12 September 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. postdlf (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional rapid transit stations[edit]

List of fictional rapid transit stations (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:CSC. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep The nomination quite fails to explain and justify itself (a classic WP:VAGUEWAVE). There are entire books about fictional railways such as Transport in British Fiction, The Railroad in Literature, The Railroad in American Fiction, and plenty of notable fictional stations such as Walford East, Titfield and platform 9 3/4. Andrew D. (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Rebuttal. The fact that none of these stations has a standalone article should tell you something. Lists are generally of notable things. This is almost all trivia, other than maybe Hobbs End (mentioned in List of London Underground-related fiction). Also, this is for rapid transit, not railroad stations. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:SALAT, WP:CSC and WP:LSC. Per WP:CSC, every entry in the list is supposed to meet the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. None do. The Dissident Aggressor 15:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clearly meets WP:CSC point 2 (the other two acronym cited above are just to different places on the same page, but this is the only relevant part making the comment a disingenuous attempt to discredit the list at best), clearly verifiable, this list serves to collate as a common topic the entries that would not merit inclusion in the main articles about the system but which are nevertheless encyclopaedic. Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no evidence that the topic as a whole meets wp:gng or wp:listn, Andrew's sources discusses railroads but not rapid transit while Thryduulf doesn't discuss the sourcing and original research problems such a list contains. Pokerkiller (talk) 21:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erm, yes I did mention the sourcing - "easily verifiable". Almost everything on here will be easily verifiable and the few things that are not can be removed, it is not a requirement that everything be immediately verified just verifiable. As for the other points, this is simply a list that collates elements from elsewhere that are not individually notable and would be excessively long in the main article about rapid transit so it has been spun out to be a separate list as is standard across Wikipedia. Please do not conflate not liking the existence of an article with there being a reason to delete that article. Thryduulf (talk) 10:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I see no problem with this article as long as everything on it is sourced (which most of them are merely by referencing the film or show they featured in given that broadcast media is a source in its own right - it doesn't require further sourcing). -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:58, 16 September 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. postdlf (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional railway stations[edit]

List of fictional railway stations (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:CSC. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can the content be merged? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep The nomination quite fails to explain and justify itself (a classic WP:VAGUEWAVE). There are entire books about fictional railways such as Transport in British Fiction, The Railroad in Literature, The Railroad in American Fiction, and plenty of notable fictional stations such as Walford East, Titfield and platform 9 3/4. Andrew D. (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Rebuttal. Books about railroads, but what about stations? None of your links is to actual standalone articles. Yes, there are stations in fictional works, but there are also roads, businesses, brands of toothpaste, etc. So?

• Before we get into all that, there needs to be a coherent case for deletion. Tossing off an obscure TLA isn't enough. You need to explain what it means; why it applies; why it can't be addressed by ordinary editing and why there aren't sensible alternatives to deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 07:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:SALAT, WP:CSC and WP:LSC. Per WP:CSC, every entry in the list is supposed to meet the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. None do. The Dissident Aggressor 15:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This is nonsense as WP:CSC specifically allows for cases where "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles". Both the nomination and this !vote misrepresent this policy guideline. Tsk. Andrew D. (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - still delete because this an utterly useless list. The Dissident Aggressor 21:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrasing in policy-speak: Per WP:SALAT: Nobody has explained how "this list contributes to the state of human knowledge." I don't believe it does, similar to how folks agreed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional theatres. Thryduulf? The Dissident Aggressor 00:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Andrew D. WP:CSC, WP:LSC and WP:SALAT all redirect to the same page, where the only relevant guideline is WP:CSC - a very disingenuous tactic that does not encourage the belief the nomination was made in good faith. If you actually read that guideline you will clearly see this list meets point 2 as Andrew D notes. There is therefore no policy or guideline referenced that gives a reason for deletion and no other explanation for why deletion would improve the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DissidentAggressor: Ok - still delete because this an utterly useless list. so, having acknowledged there is no policy reason to delete this list you still want it deleted and hope nobody notices a WP:IDONTLIKEIT !vote? Sorry, AfD doesn't work that way. Thryduulf (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a unneeded, poorly sourced, and trivial content fork of the obviously notable Railways in fiction, which Andrew's sources discuss, not this topic in particular. Pokerkiller (talk) 21:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except it's not - it would overwhelm the prose article and has been split out per standard practice on Wikipedia, meaning the it's not a content fork and is required. Poor sourcing is not a reason to delete an article, as that can be easily improved by someone with the time. Thryduulf (talk) 09:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except it is an un-needed trivial content fork. The Dissident Aggressor 03:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • When someone has explained why it isn't X, simply saying "but it is X" does not advance the discussion in any way. Why do you think it is a content fork, and why do you think it is not needed? On what grounds are you calling this "trivial"? Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Meets WP policies and is an admirably encyclopaedic page. Tim riley talk 15:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I see no problem with this article as long as everything on it is sourced (which most of them are merely by referencing the film or show they featured in given that broadcast media is a source in its own right - it doesn't require further sourcing). -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:58, 16 September 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 as this has improved and is better now. (NAC) SwisterTwister talk 20:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wilfrid Swancourt Bronson[edit]

Wilfrid Swancourt Bronson (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)

Unfortunately my searches found nothing to suggest improvement at all aside from results for his books at both Books and browser and there are no obvious targets for moving elsewhere. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• SisterTwister, Bronson seems to have had a real career as an illustrator, curator, albeit too long ago to show up well in a search. I'll try to source it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Search on "Wilfred S. Bronson" brings up reviews of his children's books on Kirkus [23].E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep published author/illustrator with a reputation in mid-20th century.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEYMANN, User:SwisterTwister, I would be glad for you to take another look. Rewrote, tightened, sourced this article. Also moved it to the name used back in the day, Wilfrid S. Bronson It could certainly use more attention, and while it is far from being the finest example of WP:HEYMANN, I think he now passes WP:CREATIVE as a 20th century artist/illustrator whose papers are maintained at the University of Minnesota, whose marine natural history illustrations are at the Yale Peabody Museum, and who wrote many well-reviewed children's books, the books could usefully be added to the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep I can find only mentions in online sources, but given the time frame some serious library research would need to be done. Authors and illustrators of children's books are difficult to source in the best of circumstances, but I see no harm in keeping this. LaMona (talk) 02:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, have added more of his books with reviews, also, is it notable that on checking worldCat a lot of his books, although being 50/60+ years old are still held by 100+ libraries? Coolabahapple (talk) 12:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per above. Appears to meet WP:GNG. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 19:41, 12 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Burn Foundation[edit]

Canadian Burn Foundation (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)

Sparsely edited article from September 2005 and it indeed seems to have closed (I recovered the dead Gazette link here) as I have found no recent evidence of activity (aside from a 2013 book mention) and their website isn't working. My searches with the most results were this thus with a closed organization with no good coverage and overall signs of improvement, there's nothing to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]