< 10 September	12 September >

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) 23:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will Amos[edit]

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

Election candidates are not notable as per WP:NPOL. See previous discussions here. FUNgus guy (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unelected candidates for office do not qualify for Wikipedia articles per WP:NPOL — if you cannot make a credible and properly sourced case that he was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article before he was named a candidate, then he does not become notable enough for a Wikipedia article until he wins the election. Delete, without prejudice against recreation on or after October 19 if he wins. Bearcat (talk) 00:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a free host for election campaigns, no other claim of notability in the article Kraxler (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unelected candidate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no stated claim to notability, fails WP:NPOL. Just in case someone thinks that this article has not seen enough discussion. --Bejnar (talk) 00:18, 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 redirect to Island6. There is a COI investigation going on, which may affect things in the future, but for now, the consensus here is to redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Charvériat[edit]

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

Article on an artist and curator based in Shanghai. I had tagged it for notability and its use of dozens of inline external links. Another user kindly converted the links into references, but on closer examination the vast majority of 100 new references now point to sites that appear to be controlled by the article subject, according to whois searches. My hunch is that the notability is not there once you remove these unpublished sources. However I might be wrong, and the plethora of self-published sources supporting the article might be obscuring genuine sources. Bringing it here for wider discussion. New Media Theorist (talk) 22:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. New Media Theorist (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. New Media Theorist (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. New Media Theorist (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The unpublished sources have now been removed. The current sources support the notability of the artist and curator. Charvériat is one of the major players on the international contemporary art scene, both as artist and curator. Coldcreation (talk) 07:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- He is? I'll admit that I know little about this (or any other) "scene"; but whether X is lemonde.fr, theguardian.com or nytimes.com, asking Google for "Thomas Charvériat" site:X brings me a total of zero hits. -- Hoary (talk) 05:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good point Hoary. Searches for major players on the contemporary art scene generally turn up hits.New Media Theorist (talk) 06:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~Redirect Significant coverage specifically about the individual is pretty thin, although I did find this. Also open to the possibility of a selective merge/redirect to Island6. Coverage in more established WP:RS mentions him in the context of this org. Vrac (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC) Changing to redirect to Island6. Vrac (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Vrac, I think Merge or redirect is a pretty good idea actually, since, as you say, Charvariat is pretty much always mentioned in the context of Island6. My issue with this article, and also the Island6 and Liu Dao articles, is that they were obviously created and edited for WP:promotion purposes. I say that because the accounts Island6 (contribs), and Tc262 (contribs) are single-purpose accounts associated with editing these pages. These accounts have contributed literally hundreds of external links to external sites on Island6 and Liu Dao controlled by Thomas Charvériat. It's hard to see the real notability when there are so many externals and so few genuine refs. When you do a search for these organizations and people, they are about 20% as notable as the articles make them out to be. Liu Dao, as you point out, has decent references. Thomas Charvériat, does not meet does not meet [WP:ARTIST]], but I think the refs that exist are appropriate to include him in a paragraph or two of the Island6 article, so I would support redirect or merge.New Media Theorist (talk) 17:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, there is a lot of content in relation to coverage. Doesn't seem to be much question about COI/SPA involvement either. Maybe that merger proposal on Liu Dao could be resuscitated and a general pruning/rationalization done. @Coldcreation: what do you make of all this? Vrac (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Coldcreation seems to be very knowledgeable on the subject. If you know the subject, and have done business with them in the past, how is that not a conflict? I find that talk page exchange to be emblematic of the problem with this article: you have to shave a lot of icing off the cake to find the real flavour.New Media Theorist (talk) 20:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about Liu Dao and have not read the article. But I did read somewhere that Liu Dao and island6 are different entities (associated, or working in collaboration, and/or exhibiting at isalnad6). The only merger I would eventually consider is Thomas Charvériat with island6. But this is different than, for example, Léonce Rosenberg, the article about whom includes his Galerie de L'Effort Moderne. Charvériat is a gallery owner and an artist in his own right, while Rosenberg was not. For this reason two different articles are justified. Coldcreation (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for the comment above by New Media Theorist: It is not conflict of interest because I have no stakes or anything else from which I stand to benefit. In addition, all I've done to the article is clean it up, by removing links and sources related to or controlled by the artist, in the hopes of improving the encyclopedic article. Nothing more, nothing less. The only thing I find emblematic of a problem is your insistence on non-notability. Coldcreation (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it's hard to take what you say in good faith, as you have not been transparent from the beginning about your relationship to the article subject. There is a presumption of neutrality here. If you know him and have curated shows with him, you have had a close relationship with the article subject and are therefore not neutral. You should have disclosed this up front. As to notability, there's a good case to examine it as the sources are weak. New Media Theorist (talk) 20:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI is pretty clear about this. "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial or other relationships" You are arguing here and in the article [Talk page] for the notability of the subject, but you have a WP:COI. New Media Theorist (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no WP:COI, as per above, and the article Talk page (hence, nothing to disclose other than what is in the article). Notability is evident from the artists accomplishments (see the sources in the article). Coldcreation (talk) 21:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... and this: Jonas Hoffmann, Ivan Coste-Manière, Global Luxury Trends: Innovative Strategies for Emerging Markets, Palgrave Macmillan, 2013, Chapter 7, Luxury and Arts in China, The island6 Case, by Camille Jaganathan, pp. 101-113, ISBN 1137287381. Coldcreation (talk) 08:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that the four points at WP:ARTIST are amply satisfied. Coldcreation (talk) 08:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coldcreation, you are pretty good at arguing for your friends. As you admitted to curating him in several shows in the past, you have a neutrality probelm in this AfD, per WP:COI, and I am not sure why you are pushing this so hard. If you look for references supporting Charveriat's art career, there's basically nothing except self-promotion. There are lots of refs for his involvement as a promoter and part of Island6, and that is where this info should be merged.New Media Theorist (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Ok I didn't initially know about the prior history here... There is always WP:COIN for dealing with COI if people feel it is warranted... As for that book source, it strikes me as more evidence that a merge/redirect to Island6 makes sense. It contains a very brief bio that serves to introduce content about, and opinions given in the context of, Island6. Vrac (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coldcreation if you can come up with three significant sources about Charveriat's work as an artist (reviews, interviews, significant book citations longer than a few sentences) that are not about his role in Island6, and are not self-published or minor mentions, I will happily withdraw the AfD. I tried, and it's impossible. He is not notable as an artist. His notability is all connected to Island6, and that is where he should be.New Media Theorist (talk) 21:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I will argue in favor of any artist that I feel merits the denomination. In this case, a discussion at Talk:Thomas Charvériat prompted me, quite neutrally, to clean up the article. There was no dispute between editors on content. As soon as it was mentioned the launching of an AfD I noted my 'first hand' contact and vouched for the notability of the artist/curator. This problem should have been resolved at Talk, and by subsequent editing to improve the main article, per WP:DEL-CONTENT, with a Wikipedia:Requests for comments, or a variety of other tags for further input. This AfD was posted prematurely.

Secondly, the publication Luxury and Arts in China was found in about 10 seconds with a cursory search. There are many other independent sources, in a wide variety of languages (e.g., Catalan, Spanish, French), referring to Charveriat's work as an artist (prior to the creation of island6), regardless of how many words or sentences are used.

1. He is widely cited by peers or successors, especially in printed press, e.g., newspapers, between 2002 and 2006, of which I have copies.
2. In many of those sources, he is mentioned for originating a significantly new concept and technique (with the use of touch-free motion sensing interactivity, LED, etc.).
3. While in Spain, he created and played a major role in co-creating a significantly well-known body of work. These works were the subject of multiple independent periodical articles and reviews (mostly in Catalan or Spanish media).
4. These works were a substantial part of significant museum, salon, cultural center and gallery exhibitions, for which he received considerable critical attention: All of the points above per WP:ARTIST. That you, New Media Theorist, find it "impossible" to locate published mentions of the artist reveals more about your multiple-language searching skills than notability.

Finally, and in conclusion, as mentioned above: while a merger of Thomas Charvériat and island6 is feasible, it is not recommendable, as Charvériat is an artist in his own right, i.e., he is notable as a result of his qualifications, abilities and artistic efforts, and for his association with others or with his gallery. If need be, I will add a list of independent sources (in whatever language) at Charvériat Talk (where this discussion should have transpired in the first place) so as not to be indiscriminately accused of conflicting interest. Coldcreation (talk) 04:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let's see the sources that talk about his artwork. He does not show up in the searches as being notable for his art because he isn't. FYI, Jenny Holzer was using LED's in her artworks in 1989, and she was not the first. The same goes for touch sensing and interactivity, which date to the 1960's. Lastly, you are not neutral in this discussion, having curated him in four exhibitions at your gallery, as you admitted on the article talk page. Leave the Afd to those who have no involvement with the article subject.New Media Theorist (talk) 07:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User :Coldcreation, you did not disclose your conflict transparently as you should have. You first tired to disclose it privately to me by email, and finally did when I refused to turn on the email. That's not good. New Media Theorist (talk) 07:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will post reliable and verifiable independent sources at Talk:Thomas Charvériat, where this discussion should be taking place. The artist does show up in multiple-language searches as being notable for his art (particularly in Catalan, Spanish and French), contrary to your erroneous claim. Your second comment generates concern: as a self-proclaimed "new media theorist" (your username), you should know that an artist needs not invent a new technology, but use it in novel innovative ways. In multiple sources, Charvériat is mentioned for originating significantly new concepts and techniques, with the use of touch-free motion sensing interactivity, LED, etc., not for having invented the technology, or for having been the first to use it. Importance and originality may be placed on the concepts or intention upon which artwork is based, and/or realized, not solely upon the medium used to create it. [EDIT: Bill Viola didn't invent Video art, nor was he the first to use video, and yet...]. Secondly, your accusations of WP:COI have already been addressed and are becoming annoying. This is not the board for such matters. As for the notability of the artist: If need be, I will post a list of references at Charvériat Talk, which will include articles published in prominent periodicals, such as El Mundo, La Vanguardia, El Periódico, and Expansión (many of which may still be accessible on Internet), along with radio and television interviews on the topic of Charvériat and his art. Lastly, the incessant ventilation of your chimerical claim that the artist is not notable reflects both shortcomings in your ability to search the Web in languages other than English, your ability to locate archived material published on the Internet over the past decade or two, and your lack of knowledge with respect to the subject under review. Coldcreation (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with these sources, and speak the three languages in question, but I don't see anything beyond passing mentions. Happy to be proven wrong. While I agree that most of this discussion could have taken place somewhere else, if you find decent sources it's best to post them here so that other editors can take them into consideration when they !vote. Vrac (talk) 12:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The goal here is not to prove anyone wrong, but I will gladly post the sources both here and at the respective talk page, Talk:Thomas Charvériat. I will also take the liberty to boldly add some of these to the main page, Thomas Charvériat, even though several links are at the artists website, as many are scans of published documents and articles (such as from El País, Netart Review, Ocaña, etc.). Note that for the past few years, the artist has been signing his works under pseudonyms (or group name), so searching his name will not lead to all the articles on the topic of his artwork (for this reason most of the references listed date prior to the opening of Island6). Note too, many, if not all the independent sources presented here are in addition to the references already present on the artists main page, and that combined (give or take a few that may overlap), exemplify amply the notability of the artist. Finally, I have not yet delved into the Coldcreation Gallery archive (material dated between 2002-2007) to sifted through the large body of publications in periodicals, reviews, audio and video recordings that had not appeared on the Internet (or are no longer), within which Charvériat is ubiquitously present; bolstering further still his notability as an artist. Coldcreation (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am disturbed that a folder of press articles suddenly appeared on Thomas Charvériat's site this morning, and that Coldcreation was able to find them and link to them so quickly. My confidence in the neutrality of Wikipedia is declining rapidly. Here's a listing of this morning's press folder on Charvériat's site. Care to comment, Coldcreation? Many of the references you cite were just posted this morning on Charvériat's site. How is that even possible?New Media Theorist (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* http://m5project.com/Press_ThomasCharveriat/

[DIR] Parent Directory -
[IMG] AsiaMagNo1Cover.jpg 15-Sep-2015 07:57 192K
[IMG] AsiaMagazinepagw1.jpg 15-Sep-2015 07:57 203K
[DIR] DiariDeBarcelona/ 15-Sep-2015 07:59 -
[DIR] DiarioDeBarcelona/ 15-Sep-2015 08:00 -
[IMG] ElPais(1).jpg 15-Sep-2015 08:17 235K
[IMG] F2T(Article_earplug).jpg 15-Sep-2015 08:00 88K
[IMG] FiftyEasy#19Article.jpg 15-Sep-2015 08:00 55K
[IMG] FiftyEasy#19Cover.jpg 15-Sep-2015 08:00 34K
[IMG] FiftyEasy.jpg 15-Sep-2015 08:18 457K
[DIR] Guerilla_innovation/ 15-Sep-2015 08:00 -
[IMG] Influx(1).jpg 15-Sep-2015 08:18 433K
[IMG] Influx(2).jpg 15-Sep-2015 08:18 290K
[IMG] LaTercera.jpg 15-Sep-2015 08:18 281K
[DIR] Nogome_artcle(Portuguese)/ 15-Sep-2015 08:04 -
[DIR] PinYPonDJS/ 15-Sep-2015 08:04 -
[IMG] Pornawak(1).jpg 15-Sep-2015 08:18 164K
[IMG] Pornawak(2).jpg 15-Sep-2015 08:18 221K
[DIR] Turbulence_articles/ 15-Sep-2015 08:05 -
[DIR] UbiksNet(japanese)/ 15-Sep-2015 08:05 -
[DIR] WemakeArtNotMoney(article)/ 15-Sep-2015 08:06 -
[DIR] blog_about_telephones/ 15-Sep-2015 08:00 -
[DIR] mikelist/ 15-Sep-2015 08:04 -
[DIR] netartreview.net/ 15-Sep-2015 08:04 -

[* DIR] vidgirl's reviews/ 15-Sep-2015 08:06 -

[ ] www_ocana_cat_2015_01_16_relato_china_capitulo_tres_thomas_c.pdf 15-Sep-2015 08:05 1.4M

Comment: Your failure or refusal to "get the point", New Media Theorist, is beyond disconcerting. This board is not about the neutrality of Wikipedia. It is about an artist whose notability you questioned. You have been answered. Done. Coldcreation (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning the neutrality of a contributor in order to preserve WP:NPV is well within the Wikipedia guidelines. You still have not answered how you found those links so fast, the ones that were published this morning to Charvériat's site!New Media Theorist (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disconcerting is an appropriate word for this situation, but not for New Media Theorist's behavior. They appear to have good reason to suspect a conflict of interest here. I also find it disconcerting that you would cite WP:DISRUPT instead of answering the question about the sources. Vrac (talk) 00:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As you mention above Vrac, there is always WP:COIN for dealing with COI if people feel it is warranted. The citations, some found on the artist's website (mentioned above), others not, are simply more evidence for notability. WP:Artist is confirmed, WP:COI is irrelevant, and WP:NPV is conserved. Coldcreation (talk) 04:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question as to how I found these citations so fast has little or no practical relevance: I have high-speed broadband Internet access. Regarding the question of when links were posted at Charvériat's website, I have no control over that, nor does it make any difference for the outcome of this discussion, as long as the sources are reliable and verifiable. Coldcreation (talk) 09:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, COIN it is. Here is a link to the case: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Island6. Vrac (talk) 23:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Closing Admin I have serious doubts about the neutrality of this discussion and some of the information presented here. New Media Theorist (talk) 21:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Island6 as a collaborative artist, as per Vrac and New Media Theorist above. --Bejnar (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Closing Admin: The citations above represent fairly, proportionately and without bias, significant views, published by reliable sources on the topic. "The neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight", per WP:YESPOV. While naturally having our own points of view, the goal is improving Wikipedia content in good faith. Finally, arguments have been given on both sides of this issue. The preponderance of evidence supports notability, and more particularly WP:Artist, i.e., the person who is the topic of a biographical article is worthy of notice, remarkable or significantly interesting enough for a written account of that person's life be recorded within Wikipedia. Coldcreation (talk) 21:27, 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. Courcelles (talk) 23:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editions Mego[edit]

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

No references or sources to establish notability. Kelly ^hi! 22:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the best I found was some passing mentions at News and Google browser. SwisterTwister talk 21:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim to notability stated in this stub of an article, qualifies under criterion A7. That by itself should do it, but it also fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC for lack of coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 00:42, 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 keep. Article's been improved since nomination & overall consensus is to keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maurizio Porfiri[edit]

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

The references lack WP:DEPTH I don't think these references establish notability they mostly cover just one publication. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 22:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His robotic fish research (is that the "one paper" mentioned?) has been reported in the Daily Mail, the New York Times, in French and Indian newspapers, Wired, Popular Science, and on and on. Some of his other work has also been widely reported. A scientist whose research meets the general notability guideline is notable. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant coverage of him and his work in numerous publications in English, French and Italian. I added two more citations to the article to show more depth. --Bejnar (talk) 01:10, 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. Courcelles (talk) 23:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

E2eTechnology[edit]

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

Absolutely no references or sources to establish notability of this firm. Kelly ^hi! 21:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Group 3 Technology exists as a company but the only Ghits are primary sources and the usual raft of business networking sites. Fails GNG. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG.Charles (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as although I found results here, here and here, there's nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 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) 20:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2010 IBSA World Blind Football Championship[edit]

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

Not notable Attaboy (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears to pass WP:GNG from the sources provided. Extensive BBC coverage. Spiderone 08:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced from mainstream media coverage, per GNG. As a world championship it is the highest level of competition, thus it also qualifies for a presumption of notability, had the sourcing been inadequate. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:48, 12 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]

Keep - Seems ironic that the nominator doesn't appear to have seen all the references in the article that clearly meet WP:GNG. Nfitz (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to meet GNG. Giant Snowman 09:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Large amounts of coverage and meets WP:GNG easily. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 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 procedural closure. A duplicate page needs not be nominated for deletion. I'll redirect the title to the previously existing page. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ghatotkach[edit]

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

Duplicate of page Ghatotkacha Pinkfloyd11 (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 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) 23:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anjanette Astoria[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and GNG. Nominations no longer count and producing one mainstream film doesn't meet PB#3 Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails PORNBIO and GNG Kraxler (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above - fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 23:21, 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. Sandstein 19:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

E. Doctor Smith[edit]

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

No reliable sources to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Kelly ^hi! 20:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 21:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While this pains me as a jazz fan, from my searching it looks like he's only a bit notable, and he doesn't seem to have gotten the kind of coverage that merits a Wiki page. I agree that this should be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Me too as a jazz and fusion drummer and keyboarder. Fails WP:MUSICBIO, notability is not inherited from the people he played with, and even his Drumstick is sadly not notable. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I also looked for information about his unique instrument, and I couldn't find support for writing about that either. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply not even the slightest coverage and the best link I found is All About Jazz. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have restored the link to "The 3-minute interview with E. Doctor Smith". The San Francisco Examiner. 28 August 2007. Most of the descriptive sources are like this one jazz drumming without the drums the e doctor smith album the drummstick at bubblews.com, not what we consider WP:RS. Anyone got a store of eight to fifteen year old Jazz magazines? --Bejnar (talk) 01:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find any sources which would help this article satisfy the notability requirements. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:03, 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 delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Centre of Advanced Study in History, AMU[edit]

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

Non-notable sub-section of non-notable department of a notable university. DMacks (talk) 19:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The fact that three of its history graduates may have WP articles does not make the department notable. I have checked that the people listed have appropriate categories; in fact two seem to be faculty, not alumni as stated. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete more non notable spam from SPI COI editors like many of the articles here Template:Aligarh Muslim University. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough coveragee in independent sources for its own article, no need for redirect. --Bejnar (talk) 01:51, 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. Courcelles (talk) 23:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Gate, AMU[edit]

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

Non-notable gate. DMacks (talk) 19:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable architecture of no much historical importance. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a scintilla of notability. Fails WP:GEOFEAT. --Bejnar (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTWEBHOST. Bearian (talk) 19:16, 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 speedy keep. Newly added sources are sufficient to establish notability. This article was completely unsourced when I nominated it for AfD. The creator of the article does not automatically mean this subject is notable. (non-admin closure) sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 01:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs. Wilkes' Dining Room[edit]

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

This does not seem to meet WP:GNG. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 18:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This clearly meets WP:GNG as it is covered in detail in numerous sources - see the search links above. Given this and the fact that the article was created by Jimbo, this seems to be a disruptive nomination contrary to WP:SK, "Obviously frivolous or vexatious nominations ...nominations which are made solely to provide a forum for disruption". Andrew D. (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, covered in Georgia's official tourism site, Savannah Morning News, W Magazine. I could probably go on, but three is more than enough for notability. As an aside, why is it that whenever Jimmy Wales writes an article on a restaurant, people try to delete it? Just something I've noticed. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 00:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I think it passes the notability requirement because of the nature of its dining taken in conjunction with its notable patrons. Neither criterion by itself would make it pass GNG. There are probably quite a few other restaurants in the USA that offer the homely dining experience of a traditional family Sunday lunch; lots that can claim the past patronage of presidents; and possibly a few others that have been the location for live NBC broadcasts; but none that can check all three of those boxes. If nothing else, the restaurant is notable because it is one of the few dining venues in the English speaking world that promotes the proper use of apostrophes. If it had been called Mrs. Wilkes's Dining Room I would have voted for Speedy Deletion. — not really here discuss 01:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment / Question The article is tagged as being a stub. It has 3 valid RS, 2 external links, and 2 images, and says all it needs to say. It's just a concise short article, not a stub. A stub needs expanding. Tagging this article as a stub is only going to encourage people to add factoid-level and non-encyclopedic material to bloviate it over an undefined line into being a full-blown article. Thus people might add things such as example course-by-course menus of typical fare served in the past. Such obvious padding would lower the quality of the article IMO. There is nothing wrong with being a short, concise article. I wanted to remove the stub tag but I will leave that decision to others. — not really here discuss 01:35, 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. Strong consensus to keep the article. (non-admin closure) —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)~~ NAC is for non-controversial closes and since a previous NAC was reversed after push back I simply cannot fathom how this could have been considered to be suitable for a non-controversial close. I am therefore striking the NAC. This discussion appears defective as the event appears notable but the deletion argument and issue appears to be around the identification of the victim that has not been sourced to any reliable source. On that basis and to try to get to the root of this issue, I have moved the page to Pima County Jane Doe until such time as some proper sourcing linking the body to Brenda Gerow emerges. Is this the consensus of this discussion? I agree its not, but it dopes seem to be the best way to resolve this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Gerow[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:BIO1E, WP:CRIME. This is not a BLP, but my reading of those policies is that the principles are approximately the same. It's difficult to find substantive sources on this, beyond some news articles about the police requesting information. The present article tries to fill the gaps with Blogspot and a web forum. Geogene (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Geogene (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Geogene (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Geogene (talk) 18:37, 11 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 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The article is arguably notable because the subject had remained unidentified for three decades after her death, which is unusual, reliable primary and secondary sources with nationwide coverage are used to support the information in the said article. Plenty of other articles with the predicament of lacking "substantive sources" (which I feel is not the case with this one) are kept and simply given a ((ref improve)) template. The article was created while the subject was unidentified and was not intended to be solely about her- only the event. Someone had changed the name of the article after she was identified without any discussion and should have been moved to "Murder of ...". Personally, I had heard that she had been identified as Brenda, yet I declined to change the article because no reliable sources had confirmed that the body was indeed hers, which is why very few sources on the web have information about "Brenda Gerow." --GouramiWatcher^(?) 02:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:CRIME. The sourcing isnt great but not enough to justify deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What, specifically, in WP:CRIME are you referring to? I don't see how it meets the criteria there. Geogene (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unsolved crime with ongoing coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I originally closed as Keep but unsurprisingly the nom's unhappy and to be totally honest I can't be arsed to argue so to keep everyone happy I've reopened. –Davey2010^Talk
Comment - the interaction in question is here [1] for posterity. Geogene (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to come to my talkpage and basically speak to me like shit you're going to get told to fo it's as simple as that, Alls you need to have said was "Dave I disagree with your closure could you please open it" which would've got a much better response. –Davey2010^Talk 10:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies WP:CRIME #1. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't understand. There are no sources in the article stating that this person is "Brenda Gerow". - Location (talk) 12:56, 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) 23:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Civision[edit]

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

by WP:WINAD -- Hannasnow (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This term isn't notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The field of encipherment of electronic signals may be entitled to an article, but this would not be it. --Bejnar (talk) 02:01, 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 speedy keep. Tyrell Williams made the roster and played his first NFL game. Someone needs to add information, though. Charlie the Pig (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrell Williams[edit]

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

Has not played in regular season or postseason NFL game, and probably will not make the roster. He did not receive substantial news coverage in high school or college, either. Charlie the Pig (talk) 04:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Having searched around, it seems that Williams has received coverage from several reliable source publications, and not just as a tangential reference here. One example is here: "The riddle is what to do with impressive rookie Tyrell Williams. If the Chargers target him for the practice squad, they would risk losing him to a waiver claim. I wouldn't take the risk. Williams looks like a potential NFL starter." Another example is here: "The former Western Oregon University star wide receiver is trying to earn a roster spot with the San Diego Chargers. Rather than be intimidated, Williams has opened some eyes during training camp and the preseason while making a major push to earn a roster spot." CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest relisting. He appears to have made the Chargers' 2015 roster. More will be known shortly. Cbl62 (talk) 18:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Currently listed on Chargers' team roster: [2]. Has not appeared in an NFL regular season game yet; no harm in re-listing to see if he satisfies WP:NGRIDIRON by playing in a game this week or next. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Williams made his NFL debut yesterday. See here. With one regular season NFL game under his belt, he now passes WP:NGRIDIRON. Cbl62 (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Having satisfied WP:NGRIDIRON by playing in a regular season NFL game, subject is now entitled to a presumption of notability. I hope someone will now take the time to expand this article, because it's pretty darn thin on content and sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 23:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Tall Pines[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by creator User:Masterminder1 with no rationale. There are still no in-depth, independent, reliable sources; please note that the NPR/NYT refs are just mentions in passing in lists. Not sufficient. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches found nothing better than some passing results at News and browser. SwisterTwister talk 07:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:PROMO advert of non-notable musicians Kraxler (talk) 21:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Their claim to fame is that their debut album was hailed as one of the top ten best records of 2007 by NPR’s Meredith Ochs. Unfortunately, the coverage of the duo has not lived up to that. Fails WP:NMUSIC. --Bejnar (talk) 02:30, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Ehrlich[edit]

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

Notability not demonstrated, relies on primary sources despite being tagged for this in 2010. PROD was declined in 2008‎ by user:Jfire on the grounds that "book has 120 cites on Google scholar, started a notable journal", but this has yet to be substantiated. I looked on Google Books and while I found some mentions in independent sources that confirm the basic facts of his life and work, IMHO they did not confirm notability. – Fayenatic London 05:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was an obit in the Baltimore Sun here:[3].E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes WP:PROF #8 as editor of Social Anarchism. St Anselm (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The journal editorship and major-newspaper obit are enough for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it helps that the bio is now linked to an article on the journal, but that article is also lacking sources, and does not demonstrate that it is a "major, well-established academic journal" as required by WP:PROF #8. – Fayenatic London 20:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article passes WP:PROF #8 as said above and the newspaper obituary is what makes me vote keep. MrWooHoo (talk) 01:40, 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 redirect to Florence and the Machine. Clear consensus against stand-alone article. Less clear for delete vs. redirect, but redirects are cheap and WP:ATD, so let's go for it. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How Big Tour[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (music) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:The1999 with no rationale. The article still has no good refs to speak of. Not all music tours are notable, and certainly - not upcoming ones with no good coverage. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to band's article if not found independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete every tour by a notable band does not need an article. There is no claim of independent notability for this tour, so it fails WP:NMUSIC despite whatever media coverage the tour may yet to have. The article is nothing but a miscellaneous collection of places and dates. Policy, WP:NOT, suggests deletion. --Bejnar (talk) 02:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or if necessary, redirect to band's article. Nothing to suggest this tour meets the notability criteria independently. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:59, 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 merge to Madura English-Sinhala Dictionary. Courcelles (talk) 23:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Madura Kulatunga[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Similar reason as last AfD. Fails WP:GNG. Most of the sources seem to either be interviews or coverage of the product, not him personally. Mdann52 (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to Madura English-Sinhala Dictionary, his only achievement. I'm far from convinced that either he or the dictionary really merits inclusion here, but quite certain that we don't need both pages. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge agree with Justlettersandnumbers and nom - the notability is more about the dictionary than its creator. Dan arndt (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge yes, the sources are more about the dictionary than him. Jytdog (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Before nominating to AFD User:Mdann52 did unconstructive content deletion from this article. User:Mdann52 removed well sourced & correctly cited key points of the subject and compare this article with previous AFD decision. Checkout this old revision of this page as edited by User:CactusWriter https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Madura_Kulatunga&oldid=679464214 We must improve this article from here. At that 1st AFD decision time Wikipedia editors cannot verify details about subject Madura Kulatunga without any English medium national newspaper articles. In Sri Lanka only 6 English medium national newspaper publishers are available. Currently we have 6 out of 6 English medium National Newspaper publishers articles about subject Madura Kulatunga. According to Wikipedia Notability guidelines subject "Madura Kulatunga" have WP:CREATIVE "3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work". 112.134.126.65 (talk) 02:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are reaping the harvest of your own design - you came into IRC and asked for assistance rewriting the article, and so you cannot complain that Mdann52 took the steps that they felt necessary to clean up the article. You created a dictionary, and that's the entirety of your contributions towards notability. You should get a byline in the dictionary entry, but nothing more. Primefac (talk) 03:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since beginning, I got support from Wikipedia Live Chat (IRC) to create Draft:Madura_Kulatunga article. I did all the things they told me to do. Lot of things they changed, remove, etc. Then they told me to submit it for review. Reviewer also found errors and rejected several times. Then again I got help from Live Chat (IRC) support and correct those errors. This happens several times. Finlay my draft got approved and become Live article. Then again User:CactusWriter 'Administrator & Senior Editor III' revised this entire article completely with his neutral point of view. However User:Mdann52 deleted well sourced & correctly cited key points of subject. 112.134.57.212 (talk) 04:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

112.134.57.212, it's certainly unfortunate ~~that~~ if you were given poor advice on IRC. You should have been asked to read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and/or WP:COI, as well as WP:COPYOTHERS, and then asked to have the decency to wait until an independent editor found Kulatunga interesting and notable enough to merit an article here. But poor advice received on IRC is not in any way a justification for keeping an article.

If you have a Wikipedia account I suggest that you log in and edit from there; the use of constantly-changing IPs may be confusing to other editors and could give an impression of sock-puppetry. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a clarification (since I don't want people thinking the helpers in IRC give bad advice) - we have from the beginning warned Kulatunga about autobios, COIs, and copyvio issues. After the first deletion we advised to go to WP:RA, to not directly copy, to avoid promotional language and fluff, etc. This is a case of "if mother says no, ask father" in that, despite half of the active helpers telling him the subject was not notable (in their eyes), he continued to ask for help from others. It was his choice to push his POV and not listen to the advice given. Primefac (talk) 13:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:112.134.109.94, as I have explained at the talk page, I believe that you have misunderstood the meaning of my edit summaries. I only edited out what I considered to be the more egregious parts of the article, as was necessary, to try and bring it towards compliance. The policies and guidelines I cited were relevant to my edits -- however, it doesn't mean the article was completely edited, nor that no more editing was needed, nor that it was fully compliant with Wikipedia's content policies. Compliance is determined by consensus among all editors. (Please note that an "administrator" or "senior editor" tag is irrelevant here -- all editors are on an equal footing when determining editing requirements.) My own opinion is that the article fails on a number of issues and I am pleased to see that they are being addressed here and at the talk page discussion. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge per my (and the other) above comments. Primefac (talk) 03:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Madura English-Sinhala Dictionary per WP:BLP and WP:BIO issues of notability. The sources and text are primarily relevant only to the dictionary. There also seems to be the continuing problems of COI and self-promotion -- the same issues expressed at the previous AFD last March. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to Wikipedia:Notability (people) we can have standalone article about Madura Kulatunga because subject meet following criteria.

WP:BASIC if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable

WP:CREATIVE The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work.

Following Sri Lanka national newspaper articles addresses the subject Madura Kulatunga directly and in detail.

[4] Madura's moxie : Sunday Observer (Sri Lanka) - Youth Observer : 17-May-2015 : Page 8-9

[5] Madura Kulatunga, a commendable contribution : The Island (Sri Lanka) - Watchout : 24-May-2015 : Page 15

[6] Madura's story : The Nation (Sri Lanka) - insight : 21-June-2015 : Page i10

[7] A humble success story Madura Kulatunga : The Daily Mirror (Sri Lanka) - Features : 15-July-2015 : Page A12-A13

[8] Effectively bridging the language gap : Ceylon Today - Hello : 26-July-2015 : Page 2

[9] 'මේ වෙනකොට ලක්ෂ නවයක් මධුර ශබ්දකෝෂය බාගත කරගෙන' මධුර කුලතුංග : Dinamina - Features : 08-August-2015 : Page 20

[10] Madura Kulatunga's Notable Achievements : The Sunday Leader - Weekend Leader : 30-August-2015 : Page 2

Only 6 different English medium national newspaper publishers are available in Sri Lanka. All of them are published articles about subject Madura Kulatunga. Those publishers are Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Limited, Upali Newspapers, Wijeya Newspapers, Rivira Media Corporation, Ceylon Newspapers and Leader Publications. Thank you 112.134.93.200 (talk) 13:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I accepted the article. In a nutshell, I felt that if the subject lived in the West, he would not be notable. However, the topic should be considered in the context of Sri Lanka, where it IS. The story he cited persuaded me: "A humble success story Madura Kulatunga". In the States, no mainstream newspaper would normally write such a piece, but in Sri Lanka, this was an inspiring piece about a well-intententioned developer who made something useful for his society. If it's deleted, obviously it should be merged with the app's entry. Wxidea (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Madura English-Sinhala Dictionary, which is the real topic and the topic of most sources. The information provided by editor Primefac was most informative, especially in terms of WP:DONTBITE. --Bejnar (talk) 03:52, 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. Courcelles (talk) 23:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

StarTex Software[edit]

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

I can find no evidence that this company rises to an encyclopedic level of notability. The page has been repeatedly recreated following deletion as spam. I recommend deleting and salting, until such evidence exists. bd2412 T 18:02, 11 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 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 19:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The references -- and the contents of the article -- are essentially about the general topic, not the company .There's a reason for that: there are no references to show the ocmpany is notable. DGG ( talk ) 08:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as there's simply no better coverage and my searches found nothing better than minor links at Books, News and Google browser. SwisterTwister talk 07:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:CORP nothing in depth, see guideline. Possibly WP:TOOSOON, but I think never. --Bejnar (talk) 14:53, 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. Courcelles (talk) 23:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saniya Iyappan[edit]

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

This is one of a series of articles created by editors/socks with conflict of interest, who also apparently run some movie and music PR websites; see ANI report and SPI report. Subject is a child who has participated in/won some TV dance show competitions and has started appearing in films. The article is padded with references that don't even mention the subject, who fails WP:GNG/ WP:NACTOR. Abecedare (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 07:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON, no claim to notability, inadequate awards, inadequate coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 16:03, 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. Courcelles (talk) 23:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Cogill[edit]

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

Not notable enough for own article, most details already included in Chinese Democracy RF23 (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chinese Democracy as it seems this is what he's best known for. SwisterTwister talk 07:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. no redirect, tangential to Chinese Democracy. --Bejnar (talk) 16:07, 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 no consensus. There's a lot of discussion here, but the core issue is the quality of the sources, and the only arguments that really stay on--topic there are Rhododendrites's list of sources and Tapered's accurate analysis of them. In the end (and with apologies to Rhododendrites's blown mind), I don't see either side making an irrefutable argument, so I'm going to have to call this a draw. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robot (dance)[edit]

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

The article's topic fails WP:N. It has not been covered by media sources considered reliable. Most of the google search results for the topic are from specialized media related to and advocating for the dance form. By implication it fails WP:RS: the articles aren't from what's considered reliable. This article's duration and visits is of limited relevance. If a broken down house by the side of a road has been seen by thousands--it's still a broken down house. Tapered (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator rationale. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 07:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Reliable secondary sources such as this and this and this can be found, demonstrating that this is a notable form of hip hop dance with a global reach. ABF99 (talk) 06:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of the articles has "signifcant coverage" (quote from WP:N) that warrants a dedicated article in Wikipedia. Tapered (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ABF99's arguments and sources. Theredproject (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Popping - ??? "Specialized media related to and advocating for the dance form"? The 13 million ghits? I see reliable sources just in the first page. It's an extremely well known dance (at least in the US). My mind will be blown if this doesn't get WP:SNOWed. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Updated !vote to add "or Merge". The subject is clearly notable, it's not entirely certain that it should be a stand-alone article rather than be an expanded part of the popping article or another article related to breakdancing (many of the sources connect it to one or both of these). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please. Show a link of a reliable source with significant coverage. Tapered (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sifting through the number of search results one receives when trying to find sources for a cultural icon can be a pain, indeed, but these's no shortage. These are the product of 5 minutes or so of looking: Diary of an Ex Soul Train Dancer @ Soul Train, Dancing machines: a brief history of the robot dance @ Trivia Happy, Robot Dance Is a Winner with William @ The News Letter, The Soul Train History Book Presents: The Mighty Mighty Jackson 5! @ Soul Train, Underground Dance Masters (spans a few pages), Hip-Hop and Urban Dance, B-Boys: A Children's Guide to Hip Hop, PETER Crouch may have retired his famous robot dance.(Features) @ Liverpool Echo, The Robot @ Locker Legends, WHY, ROBOT? Artists Try to Break Record for Synchronised Robot Dance @ Sunday Mercury... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That many is obfuscation, but I did slog through. Only 3 of those are remotely in the vicinity of significant coverage by a reliable source. 2 are behind a pay wall. The other is a website called "Trivia Happy," that does give significant coverage. I think it's safe to say that a larger number of hits would produce a similar pattern. If the admin(s) who close this out consider it, or something similar, to be reliable, it's their call. Tapered (talk) 00:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nominator has a very valid point. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – More sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(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)

Comment – If not independently notable, a merge to List of dances would enhance that article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article needs paring and/or improvement with more sourcing, but the topic of this 10 year old article appears to be clearly notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bzzzzt, rrrrrrtt, Keep. I guess an argument could be made that it should be merged but that's not the argument that has been put forth here. Not seeing a delete argument at all. Artw (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Neither of the previous "Keeps" make a reasoned argument on their behalf. One takes the trouble to assert WP:N without any backing evidence. I'm leaning toward incorporation in some larger dance article after the suggestions of North America¹⁰⁰⁰ and Rhododendrites Tapered (talk) 22:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added two cites to the article. To be clear, the nomination here appears to come from a lack of knowledge of American pop culture of the 70s. There are thousands of articles just like this one that could be nominated because the nominator assumes they are non-notable, as they really do need improvement.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added two more cites now. Tapered, I know your nomination was in good faith, but instead of digging in against the keep votes, there's no shame in realizing it is in reality an article that needs work on a notable subject, based on the comments on your fellow editors. That's what this discussion is for. Cheers.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oh, the shame! This is about a choice--does this have WP:N or not? Collectively, let alone individually, the cites don't have sufficient coverage to warrant a stand-alone article. A section in a larger article--yes. Wikipedia is not a hobby farm for people seeking to confer notoriety on their interests. Perhaps I can convince the powers-that-be to encode and state that concept/bracketing definition in WP:NOT. Tapered (talk) 03:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On further consideration, you're correct--there is no shame in admitting a mistake. I was wrong. Wikipedia IS (in part, only in part, not collectively) a hobby farm, because many of the admins who make the final decisions @ AfD allow the feel-good bromides of enthusiasts to trump reasoned argument. Another editor and I were recently made a series of excellent reasoned, coherent comments endorsing an article's deletion. The more numerous 'Keepers' made no reasoned, fact-based rebuttals or Wikipedia-guidelines-based justifications for keeping the turkey. Rest assured, it's still gobbling. Tapered (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not any different than the rest of the world. Figure out how to make the turkey of life better.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:37, 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. RockMagnetist(talk) 06:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert L. Drexel[edit]

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

My searches simply found nothing and to suggest improvement with my best results here and here and I couldn't anything to confirm he was one of seven founders or else I would've mentioned him and redirected to that article. SwisterTwister talk 19:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is the first entry in the standard GBooks search, looks reliable and gives precisely the information currently in the article - but only mentions him just that once. Some of the other entries in the GBooks search seem to be infinitesimally indicative of notability, in that they are study guides on criminology-related subjects which repeatedly give his name as one of the wrong answers in multiple-choice questions - there should presumably be questions to which he is the right answer, but I can't find them (let alone then find better sources for any resulting information). PWilkinson (talk) 10:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looking on Google News, Google Books, etc turns up on the slimmest bits of information on this fellow. The article as it's written now, as well, is pretty bad. I feel inclined to just delete it. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:49, 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) 23:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CVS (Commercial Valuers & Surveyors)[edit]

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

Non-notable property surveying firm - fails WP:CORP. ukexpat (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete blatant advert. LibStar (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (articulate) @ 16:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (sermonise) @ 16:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per LibStar - Promotional shite that belongs anywhere but here!, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as non-notable business; free promo advert. Quis separabit? 17:38, 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. No consensus to keep non-notable topic. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Theertha Vinod[edit]

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

This is one of a series of articles created by editors/socks with conflict of interest, who also apparently run some movie and music PR websites; see ANI report and SPI report. The subject has a relatively minor role in an upcoming film and has participated in some TV contests. The sources cited in the article are non-reliable or at best borderline and some (eg filmibeat and ibtimes) don't even mention the subject (the article creator and his meat-puppets are known for misrepresenting sources in this way). Abecedare (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability. A child with one movie role, TV dance shows appearances (and a mug with her picture on it) does not notability make! Poor or BS sourcing clinches it. 220 of ^Borg 17:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is the just another example of the promotional sockfarm puffery that is running rampant in such articles. Take a non-notable "up and comer", add a whack of references that don't verify the content or are tenuously related to the subject, then IP-hop and create multiple socks to maintain the article.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've attempted to clean up the article and, as expected, the references either did not meet WP:RS or failed verification entirely. Given that the subject is a minor and the notability is dubious at best, I strongly support deletion. On a related note, my virus scan and browser are crying real tears at what I put them through attempting to verify the references given.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:29, 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. —SpacemanSpiff 14:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Shekhar[edit]

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

This is one of a series of articles created by editors/socks with conflict of interest, who also apparently run some movie and music PR websites; see ANI report and SPI report. Most of the cited sources are trivial mentions, with the only subtantial coverage being this interview in Times of Oman. That is insufficient to meet WP:GNG or WP:FILMMAKER standards of notability at the moment. Abecedare (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 17:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe redirect to Jilebi as it seems this is what he's best known and my searches found nothing to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominated. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 13:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above editor. Nothing in searches to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:51, 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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Angrez 2[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. No references. So obscure it's not even listed in imdb. ubiquity (talk) 14:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Objection withdrawn by proposer. ubiquity (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (quip) @ 16:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (sing) @ 16:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts...

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

WP:INDAFD: "The Angrez 2" "Kuntaa Nikkil"

Comment: For an Indian film to not be listed in IMDB means little, as many are not so listed and inclusion therein is no sign of notability. And obscure here does not mean obscure there. Expanding search parameters and using WP:INDAFD, We can see that the topic is not "obscure" there and thus not unsourcable. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep @Ubiquity: Not to make too much of a point of it, as this sometimes happens with Indian films when nominators expect immediate perfection of new articles, but in a modified search parameter of "The Angrez sequel", I found a quite decent article on it in The Hindu, and then found it listed at IMDB. We might reasonably expect it has more coverage not indexed by Google. What you first found lacking, is now a suitable stub that can be expanded and improved as it gains more eyes. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I'm ready to back off. When I did my own search for references, I saw this was not in imdb, but that the video was on youtube, and concluded (perhaps rather jumpily) that this was some fan version that was not really a professional effort. As the article stands now, it's rather better than most articles for new Indian films. ubiquity (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, greatly appreciated. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:29, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Development, Democracy and Governance[edit]

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

I have just hacked away a huge amount of promotional material from this article, which read like the organization's brochure (and I have no doubt the material came from their website). There is nothing left--and there are no secondary sources to verify the organization's notability per our standards. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I have just soft-blocked the creator account, Cddg, for reasons that should be obvious. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 19:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I checked out the links provided by someone in the organisation(?), which concern the construction of a cold storage facility and the planting of trees in the village of Ainata. The CDDG appear to be involved as partners in these projects, but there's no explanation of their role. Neutral Some more projects have been added to the article. It's possible that the CDDG is run by the Lebanese Forces Party so the article might be useful in a broader context. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 20:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the grandiosity of the name, it appears to be a small group of activists (12?) based in Dbayeh, who have successfully gone through an auditing process called BALADI-CAP so that they can participate in the disbursement of funds from USAID to local projects. They also have connections to the Lebanese Forces Party, so possibly acting as an indirect point of contact between the party and USAID. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I strongly object to edits like this one by Wissamraji, who is happy to turn the article into a brochure for the organization but won't show up here to present reliable sources that establish the outfit is notable. Should this article be kept, all such content will need to go: it is irredeemably spammy. Drmies (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good job it's (ostensibly) the group's president who's adding all this stuff- I thought it might have been an office junior, acting under orders the editor wrote sarcastically. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified delete I am ignorant of Arabic, and therefore cannot evaluate the sources in that language. Those sources that are in English do not establish notability (they are not secondary reliable sources) and the form of the Arabic sources do not inspire confidence. Furthermore, active editors there do not seem to be engaging in any effort to establish notability. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches turned up nothing to show this group meets the notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:48, 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 speedy delete. G11, entirely promotional and incapable of being rewritten. DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AdSparx[edit]

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

Article created by undisclosed paid COI editor in direct violation of the TOU. Article only edited by them and a (now) blocked sock. We either clean up this sort of mess or it carries on. Widefox; talk 16:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also: User_talk:BiH § Terms_of_Use, and User_talk:BiH/Archives/2014/November
Widefox; talk 18:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Article created Oct 2014 by User:BiH, paid editing disclosure made June 2015 [11] along with a long list of previously undisclosed paid articles: User_talk:BiH#Terms_of_Use Widefox; talk 02:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the sufficient reasons above, plus inherent notability problems with a pre-commercially viable "cloud-based in-stream video ad technology" startup. All the sources say is that it has received various types funding, nothing about what makes the company or its tech worth noting in an encyclopedia. WP is not a startup directory. - Brianhe (talk) 18:33, 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) 23:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aphorhyme[edit]

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

WP:NEO term apparently only ever used by a single non-notable poet. No secondary sources, just the poet's own poems and self-promotional entries in slang dictionaries. McGeddon (talk) 15:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An internet search turns up nothing except someone under the name of Volodymyr Knyr claiming to have invented this as an art form. At best, it would be a dictionary entry. However, this appears to be either a hoax, or just someone who is adept at getting his name all over the internet with no real accomplishments. Nothing turns up in WorldCat or Google Books. — Maile (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any non-gibberish/English usage for this term on Google Books. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:35, 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 speedy delete. G11; (not notable either, but G11 is sufficient as a reason) DGG ( talk ) 08:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

National Crime Scene Clean Up Association[edit]

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

Professional organization which appears to fail WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Crime scene cleanup in general is certainly notable, and the provided references do a good job of covering the general subject, but they say little to nothing about this organization in particular, and I didn't find any material with which to shore it up. --Finngall ^talk 14:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons stated by nominator. About the only thing this article is doing is promoting the for-profit business organization of the association's president. In this regard, take a look at the list of for-profit web sites that appears in the article's talk page. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the changes made with the additional sources and notability Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.56.130.141 (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All you did was blank the prior version of the article's Talk page, add a cite to a YouTube video, and add a reference to a state website that doesn't discuss your association at all. Looking further into the page's history, I see that the (now-blanked) member list, plus much of the article text, was added by accounts that are now blocked as sockpuppets of DanaTodd, per the investigation here. My opinion remains Delete. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:02, 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) 23:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DeskPRO[edit]

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

Contested PROD. I can't find any good sources and there are none that meet WP:RS in the article. Fails WP:GNG. One of the problems with finding good sources is that there are other products with the same name, but after more than fifty returned results on Google, nothing that I can find. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent RS refs. Refs provided are company sites, FinancesOnline.com, which appears to write reviews as part of paid promotional campaigns and is not RS, and incidental mentions in Entrepreneur and http://thenextweb.com. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 05:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSOFT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:32, 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) 23:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bejan Almazov[edit]

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

Non-notable sport fighter. Purpose seems to be to advertise his school (COI). No support for any of the titles and doubtful they would meet notablility requirements if there were. Does not meet WP:KICK, WP:NBOX or WP:GNG. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. The only reference is to a website that anyone can post records on and the external link is to a site that is not yet active. My search found no significant coverage. Neither sherdog nor boxrec list him at all, despite the article's claim he has 23 professional MMA fights just in the U.S. and is undefeated in 25 pro boxing fights.Jakejr (talk) 00:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I declined the BLP-prod for this, since there did seem to be references, but now that I look at it I'm convinced that the article is WP:BOLLOCKS, a fighter with this sort of record would have at least some reliable coverage to corroborate the story but there's nothing there. Delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pulsa diNura[edit]

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

Written as personal research, no additional verification given since Oct 2008, references dead links or misrepresented Eframgoldberg (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources in the article are adequate and appropriate to demonstrate notability. The lack of sources added after some arbitrary date is hardly an excuse for deletion and the sources available in the article and in the books listed here all further demonstrate independent notability of the subject. Alansohn (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If the article contains WP:OR, remove it or tag it as such but this doesn't look to be exclusively OR such that it would require WP:TNT and the subject does appear to pass WP:GNG. See for example Times of Israel, Huffington Post, Daily Beast, Haaretz, Israel National News, YNet, Modern Judaism (academic journal)... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Part and parcel of Jewish tradition, with a few modern cases to make it saucier. Debresser (talk) 17:57, 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 – This is a borderline case. The nominator's rationale is reasonable, but the general consensus of those who have provided arguments is that the article should be kept based upon reliable Arabic sources. While there are a number of reliable sources that provide information about Sarah Fasha, most of these are in a passing, or minor way. However, based upon a couple of the sources I am reasonably confident that this person is notable in Egypt; the phrase "Ask any Egyptian, and you may hear that beauty queen Sarah Fasha has typically pharaoh-esque features." from Al Arabiya gives an indication of this. That said, the article does need further work to demonstrate that notability, and a future AfD is likely if no changes are made. Harrias ^talk 17:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Fasha[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Non-notable person. Lacks significant number of reliable sources. Pageant won was minor and virtally unknown, as no major or reliable source actually reported on who won the pageant. All/most sources contained in the article are not high quality, and do not meet the standard for a reliable source. Additionally, Anyone can speak at TEDx independent speaking event, so if we had an article for every person that spoke at an independent (non-notable) TEDx event, we would have many more non-notable people on Wikipedia. As for the "YouTube" section, she is virtually non-existent on Youtube with a very low subscriber count (~2000) further proving her non-notability, and the article focuses on Youtube for a large part. Article as a whole is a clear and simple violation the Wikipedia notability policy. Megat503 (talk) 05:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with the points the nominator made. Subject does not meet notability guidelines. comet1440 (User talk:comet1440) 01:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC) — comet1440 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I disagree, she's bullied because of her Muslim background and skin color. I think her page should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StePAhi (talk • contribs) 22:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence to suggest there is any misconduct surrounding her article because of her religious or ethnic background? Also, do you have a policy based argument on why the article should be kept? Mkdw ^talk 03:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I checked the references in the page and I can find Italian, American, Egyptian Magazines and even talk shows even her IMDB showed how many movies and TV series she worked in even if it was a small role. I'm not going to talk about religions or races because we shouldn't discuss this on Wikipedia all of volunteering her to spread the knowledge and face the raciest, I hope everyone in Wikipedia will understand our goals because some new users still need to stop being racist. Finally, I think her page should be kept. Ahmed Mohi El din (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Highly agree, her "sources" are NOT reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelSanchez310 (talk • contribs) — JoelSanchez310 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I have stricken the comment by Ahmed Mohi El din, as this account has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Everymorning (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I think this article shouldnt be on wikipedia. She is not important,sources are very unreliable JoelSanchez310 (talk) — JoelSanchez310 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Strong Delete I see where the nominator made his reasoning, Sarah is not a notable person to have their own page on wikipedia as the sources are unreliable. Any person can speak at a TEDx event and that alone is not enough to where that person should have a wikipedia page. The beauty she won was minor and as well does not hold enough significance. AhmedWildooks (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC) — AhmedWildooks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

* Keep I disagree. Before we say sources are unreliable we have to read Wikipedia:Verifiability

Magazines

Journals

Mainstream newspapers

completely reliable as a sources for Wikipedia. Any person can speak at a TEDx event this completely not true Bill Clinton and Bill Gates were not any person. Finally the main idea of the page that she is Actress and Miss Egypt not about YouTube or TEDx so this should be kept.Davidwiki12 (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replying To Davidwiki12: Bill Clinton and Bill Gates spoke at TED, not a TEDx event. TEDx events are non-notable independent events (which is what Sarah spoke at). Her TEDx talk (as most TEDx talks) did not receive strong coverage from multiple notable/reliable sources. TEDx and TED are completely different and mutually exclusive events. Literally anyone can set up a TEDx event (not a TED event). Furthermore, Wikipedias guidelines for notable people ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria ) require SIGNIFICANT coverage from multiple reliable strong sources. Sarah does not have this. Simply being covered by 1 or 2 unknown magazines/websites is not enough to be an entry on Wikipedia. The references/sources in this article are very incredibly weak with no notable/known magazine reporting on anything about her. Doing my own research and still could not find any notable/reliable source reporting about her. Also to note, Ahmed Mohi El din (person who made strong keep vote above) created the article and made the vast majority of edits to the article, and is most likely a Wikipedia Conflict of Interest to keep the article. Megat503 (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC) — Megat503 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Megat503 First of all please don't start talk about other users in a bad way if Ahmed Mohi El din is the creator of the page and want to keep it this make sense as usual, you have to discuss with him as we all do not attacking him. X=independently organized event but it's still TED event and it's not true that anyone can talk at the event. Davidwiki12 (talk) 09:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment you're all joking, right? A perfunctory journal search has returned more than 1000 citations, thus easily passing WP:GNG. No question here whatsoever as to whether this should be kept. Does nobody perform WP:BEFORE anymore? no reasonable substantive arguments for deletion, and the article includes significant indicators of notability and I think

Italian magazines/websites are reliable
American websites and talk show are reliable
Egyptian websites/ magazines and talk shows are reliable

standard searching shows good case that Mrs.Fasha meets criteria for WP:GNG. But it's very ironic that all the users here are new except two and all the new user all their edits about the deletion of this page for example Megat503 the first 10 edits he made just to remove this page / user AhmedWildooks just 1 edit to remove the page and user JoelSanchez310 just 1 edit to remove this page. Ahmed Mohi El din (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- WP:PROF is measurement of academic achievements. She truly fails on that. Technically, the subject is the winner on Queen of the Universe Pageant 2013. I guess she fails on WP:GNG, otherwise we gotta establish notability of the pageant that she won. Nominator's point and comments within the discussion are valid. Hitro talk 20:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have refactored the above discussion for readability. The discussion previously looked like this. Others have also refactored some discussions, as a number of SPA editors (some whom clearly are not familiar with how RFA discussions are formatted), have participated in this discussion. Mkdw ^talk 22:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing administrator. Ahmed Mohi El din and Davidwiki12 are Confirmed socks. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ahmed Mohi El din.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Clearly this person does not meet any notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the links appear to meet WP:RS guidelines for establishing notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep , she have a good notability in Egypt , and there are many reliable sources about her but they are in Arabic such as Youm 7 article and almasry alyoum article --Mohamed Ouda (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are there sources you can add to the article that would alleviate burden of proof required? Notability is not regional therefore if she's notable through WP:SIGCOV in Arabic publications then the article should be kept. Both sources you cite, especially the second one, appear to be very short. Using those two sources alone, I wouldn't say SIGCOV has been met. Mkdw ^talk 03:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @Mohamed Ouda: I'm relisting this to give you a chance to reply. If not, it'll likely be deleted in seven days. Also semi-protecting the AFD Courcelles (talk) 04:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 04:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Courcelles for the relist , I added another reliable references to the article now --Mohamed Ouda (talk) 11:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Courcelles (talk) 04:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Another new editor, Saritabaldonado has made a Keep post on the talk page for this deletion discussion and has listed some sources Cannolis (talk) 08:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Maybe I'm not the best one to talk about her notability in the US as I live in Egypt, but I can say that for example, the Arabic article for this person is very unlikely to be deleted. A similar discussion about the notability of this person or deleting this page on Ar Wikipedia would get closed in the same day. The newspapers cited on this page are the most prominent ones in the Arab World. I hope the administrator's decision here doesn't get affected by the sock puppet issue of Ahmed. Thank you! --Samir (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Many of the !votes expressed up till now are not policy-based. I would encourage participants to review their !votes and expand where possible. Randykitty (talk) 12:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm inclined to agree with Samir I Sharbaty. Sources are indeed reasonably reliable. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has enough sources for WP:N, sources are reliable.Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. First, good luck to whomever closes this SPA/sockfest. I will go with a soft endorsement of notability based primarily on this Al Arabiya article - which I think is unquestionably a reliable source with significant coverage. The other Al Arabiya is more of a passing mention, although since it uses the subject an example intended to exemplify a group I suppose its nontrival. There a fair breadth of hits in Arabic sources, which per Google translate seem to report minor film roles and her online show. The Italian link is interesting, and I'm not sure what to make of it. The fact that it exists at all would be, for me, a pretty good indication of notability. However, as best I can determine the sight is an online blog, and I can not determine whether there are editorial standards to speak of. Normally on this level of evidence I'd come down delete, but I do think its reasonable allow for a cultural bias effect - fewer arabic sources are likely to be found and understood by the typical en.wiki editor, and there are actual arab language sources out there. So, on the whole, I think she just to the right side of the notability divide. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:12, 21 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 no consensus. Sandstein 08:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015–16 Ayr United F.C. season[edit]

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

Article is unnecessary, offers no more content or context than available at Ayr United F.C. and is unlikely to be updated. Exxy (talk) 20:23, 27 August 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 August 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 17:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These are professional clubs and I'm fairly certain with work they could meet GNG, however a mass of articles were created that no one has any intention of updating. As the nominator says they offer no more in there current state than the main article. GS we do usually allow articles at this level and it certainly wouldn't have less coverage than the English National League. However it is my view they should be deleted. Blethering Scot 21:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is in the process of being updated. Sgcosh (talk) 06:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 19:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article has been significantly updated since it was initially flagged for deletion. It now offers more content not available at Ayr United F.C., making the original reason for flagging this article no longer valid. This article should no longer be considered for deletion. Sgcosh (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep User:Sgcosh (talk) has now made some substantial edits to the article, however this editors contributions are fairly intermittent. I'd suggest there is merit to keeping the article, so long as it doesn't get forgotten about, as similar articles such as 2013–14 Ayr United F.C. season and 2014–15 Ayr United F.C. season have. Exxy (talk) 20:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSEASONS. Number 5 7 14:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion this article meets WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. This is a professional club. There is large precedent of allowing articles at this level, with it receiving coverage similar to the English National Leagues. Sgcosh (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NSEASONS specifically requires the league to be professional, not the club. Number 5 7 15:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, articles such as 2009–10 Livingston F.C. season, 2012–13 Rangers F.C. season, 2013–14 Rangers F.C. season and 2014–15 Bristol Rovers F.C. season should not exist as none of these teams played in a professional league during these seasons. Exxy (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree, although the Rangers seasons almost certainly meet the GNG and their case is a highly unusual one that WP:IAR probably applies to. Number 5 7 22:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Basis for nomination appears entirely false. Suggesting that it is unlikely to be updated seems false given that it has been significantly updated. Also looking at the article last year and earlier years for the same team in the same league 2014–15 Ayr United F.C. season it was updated many times, and is well referenced. Nfitz (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NSEASONS. The club do no play in a fully professional league, nor in the top tier of their respective country therefore, by neither count could they be considered to be competing in a "top professional league" per NSEASONS. Perhaps at the end of the season, there will be sufficient significant, non-routine, reliable coverage to create an article comprising significant elements of sourced prose, but not at the moment. So far the article has only one reference from a non-primary source. Fenix down (talk) 14:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep - article is well referenced. Ayr United are (presently) a fully professional club [12] and have played other professional clubs this season (eg1 Dunfermline, eg2 Rangers). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:NSEASONS states that they should consist of well sourced prose and not just lists of stats etc. I think the prose section needs to be fleshed out a lot more. There's not even an entry for June so far. --Jimbo^[online] 15:56, 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 19:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Kapisa[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of Kapisa, there are still no reliable sources saying that there was a siege at Kapisa. Even if there was a battle and capture, there doesn't seem to have been a siege - and any battle or capture should be inAncient Kapisa although this shouldn't be a redirect as without any suggestion of a siege no one is likely to use this to search. Reading the AfD, even User:Ariobarza seems to admit there are no sources calling it a siege. The Behistun inscription doesn't use the word siege - Full translation of the Behistun Inscription The source in Greek in this article was also used in the original article. The other sources (except for one used to locate the modern city) are:

^[1] Then, in some way he managed to capture it.^[2] In vengeance for the ruthless resistance (which in that area was common at the time) he destroyed it, or perhaps might have burned it first.^[3] But the greatly preserved ruins are still seen today. Doug Weller (talk) 11:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. No improvement on last time as far as I can see. Only primary sources are used and the reference to Xenophon's Cyropaedia (a historical romance) does not seem to support what it claims to. --Folantin (talk) 11:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it was never called a siege, and perhaps all that is needed is a name change. Then again darius says in the Behistun Inscriptions : I captured the city. (Something like that). That seems to be pointing to a siege. Then again there are no sources so that theory is out. Maybe it should be called the capture of Kapisa? Or the destruction of kapisa though capture seems more neutral.

And you are right there are no scholars sources...yet. though I want to say scholars can forget things especially small things lIke some siege at some unimportant place barely mentioned by Pliny the Elder, wiki policy says must be scholars soures and since there are non let's not waste time, just delete thid article already!! History of Persia (talk) 20:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (or just redirect) to Ancient Kapisa. Nevertheless, Pliny (a Roman author) seems an unlikely source on Afghan history. There has been some WPan who has been determined to apply a "battle/war" infobox to every ancient conflict, and this has generated a lot of inappropriate articles on events where would be required to go beyond some very scanty facts. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't know that there's much here to merge, but I guess leaving a redirect in place is easy enough. Still, since there wasn't an actual siege (or at least there aren't sources calling it a siege) I think deleting is probably the best course. Just because a battle is briefly mentioned in an ancient text doesn't mean we need to have a separate article on it. AniMate 03:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no redirect, as there is no source for a "siege". Given the existing sources, the taking of Kapisa is worth a single sentence in the history section of the Kapisa Province article, which at present does not mention it. It is doubtful that it is even worth mentioning in the Cyrus article. --Bejnar (talk) 03:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 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) 23:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geometry Expressions[edit]

(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! 11:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Best source I could find was this, but I don't think that's enough. Article as it stands has hints of promotionalism and too mcuh of a how to, with no independent sources. Polequant (talk) 12:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources are mostly self-published, and article is more like a promotional sales brochure or manual than an encylcopedic article. Agree with above aruments as well.New Media Theorist (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete simply having a software program available on a site does not really provide notability, unless it is the subject of instruction at major universities or widely in school systems. The essay, not a guideline, at Wikipedia:Notability_(software) can be instructive. Here, we do not have significant coverage, just one good review at Questia. --Bejnar (talk) 03:15, 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 redirect to Rocket_Power#Other_projects. Don't usually close on one !vote but Redirect does seem the better choice here and I'm 95% sure if this was relisted we'd only gain another redirect so no point dragging it on. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket Power: Extreme Arcade Games[edit]

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

A fourteen-year-old video game of no impact whatsoever. Calton | Talk 11:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rocket_Power#Other_projects, which houses the series. Please consider performing easy redirects yourself before coming to AfD. – czar 01:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- In his defense, he was advised by an admin to take it to AfD after he prodded it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  @Iridescent said "if you see fit". I would encourage everyone equally to redirect plausible search terms before taking them to AfD. – czar 13:50, 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. The discussion was a little sparse, but the only person arguing to keep failed to give any policy-based reasons. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not That Funny[edit]

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

Was PROD'd and author contested. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. A non-notable, non-charting song. Azealia911 _talk 21:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Only released in a small number of countries and didn't chart in any of them. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Was performed on several Fleetwood Mac tours and the article does have a number of sources. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 03:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A song being performed on tour, no matter how many times, isn't notable if the people performing it are the people who released it. Like all of the recent Fleetwood Mac stub articles I've AfD'd, the articles sources are all currently concerning the album it's from or a concert that gives the song a passing mention. Per WP:NSONGS "If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created." Although not explicitly required, it'd be nice to see at least one source entirely devoted to the song, as opposed to album reviews and concert reviews. Azealia911 _talk 04:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything I can do to help the article Azealia911? Dobbyelf62 (talk) 12:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not in my opinion no, had I thought the article could be improved I probably wouldn't have AfD'd it. Unless you find some reliable, third-party, independent sources that aren't album or concert reviews. Azealia911 _talk 12:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Azealia911: I'll see what I can do. Is Rattlesnake Shake any better? I still have some additional sources just in case. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 12:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No harm in keeping the article. I don't see moving the content to the Tusk article. It wouldn't make any sense to put the information there. I feel like Not That Funny needs its own page. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:NSONGS. The sources that have been found are for the album, so this song receives mentions as you would expect but that's it. Polequant (talk) 12:27, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 08:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ulf Herman[edit]

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

not notable, no sources to verify RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. --Non-Dropframe _talk 20:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. --Non-Dropframe _talk 20:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. --Non-Dropframe _talk 20:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Competed at the fully professional level of his sport. Was part of a major stable in the third biggest promotion in the United States at the peak of its popularity. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice proof. No extensive coverage of any of this, mind. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete i think "fully professional" is misleading. There is no amateur version unless you count backyard feds. No really notable achievements as far as i can see. MPJ -US 20:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not actually remember his time in ECW, reading through the section he won one' match, a singles match on a house show over a tag team guy. Even his PPV "participation" consisted of him being ringside during someone else's match. So he was in ECW, but ECW was never so big that working for them on a regular basis is enough to establish notability, it's not even close to WWE, more like Ring of Honor. MPJ -US 08:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless he was extremely marginal in the group another idea could be to either merge of redirect to The Full Blooded Italians.--174.91.187.234 (talk) 22:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that working for the third largest wrestling promotion in the United States, who had a nationally (and then some) televised deal, doesn't establish notability. To work for the company for years is demonstration of notability. Keep in mind the parallels in other sports--playing a single MLB or NHL game is sufficient to establish notability. I'm not saying that a single match should be enough, but to compete for years, in a non enhancement/jobber role shows a level of achievement sufficient to show notability. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the books at the moment, but I have been told that All Or Nothing: The Story of Europe's Most Controversial Wrestling Company and Holy Grail: The True Story of British Wrestling's Revival (written by a former professional wrestler and a former professional wrestling manager, respectively) both have extensive coverage of Herman's career in the UK, where he also has a lengthy list of accomplishments to demonstrate notability. Ultimately, we've got a guy whose career on two different continents are each sufficiently notable; put them together, and there's no way this article should be deleted or merged. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing on the search engines except some trivial mentions on News and Books. Zero on newspapers, scholar, highbeam and Jstor. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article needs some help. The claims of notability are not fluff, and there is a German version of his article de:Ulf_Herman and the Germans tend to delete slightly more frequently than here (though it was never subjected to AFD there). There is some evidence that more sourcing exists ( http://m.hildesheimer-allgemeine.de/index.php?id=2983&tx_ttnews[backPid]=2978&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=316488&cHash=5a710414a25796e3c7816d47e29b66a6 - brackets in link are screwing up wikimarkup). Is anyone willing to userify and improve if deletion is the only other prospect?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Commment: I have also found this site (in translation): [13]. It describes him as a German wrestling legend and discusses his induction into the Hall of Fame for a German wrestling organization in recognition of his 23 years as a professional. I have also added a bit more information (with a few additional sources) and trimmed some of the promotional language. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've got to be kidding. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being that this is the English language Wikipedia it's natural to unintentionally ignore foreign sources. His run in the English-speaking wrestling world wasn't incredibly noteworthy but he seems to have had a somewhat noteworthy career on the independent scene in Germany.LM2000 (talk) 00:17, 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. Screw it will close and move myself otherwise we're gonna be relisting this for bloody ever! (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dansk Jernbane[edit]

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

I'm not Danish so I hope we can get some insight into this possibly non-notable company that has existed since July 2006 (basically the same content) and, at best, this could be mentoned at CFL's article (the Dansk article was moved to CFL Cargo here as well). To the best of my abilities, I searched for sources and found nothing good. Notifying tagger Davey2010. SwisterTwister talk 07:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Société Nationale des Chemins de Fer Luxembourgeois per nom - Judging by this [14] they were merged into CFL Cargo (I'm assuming the Merger happened in 2006?), Seeing as the "Dansk Jembane" DK wiki article redirects to CFL Cargo we may aswell follow suit, I did a few sources [15][16][17][18][19] but not sure if they're related (My laptop translates "Dansk Jenbane" as "Danish Railways" so all could be unrelated!). –Davey2010^Talk 14:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it seems this translates to Danish Railway as other articles have the word "jernbane" as well. SwisterTwister talk 20:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So we're a bit fucked source wise

, Would be nice if a Danish person showed up lol. –Davey2010^Talk 20:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to CFL Cargo Denmark - Not gonna lie the whole naming thing is a tad confusing but there we go, Seems better to Move instead of merging to I guess an irrelevant article, Can't be bothered to fiddle with all the above so take this as my final answer lol. –Davey2010^Talk 02:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If kept it should be moved to CFL Cargo Denmark, as the company got a new name in 2006/07. Same owner then and now (directly or indirecly, not totally clear to me presently): CFL, hence the name which in Danish is CFL Cargo Danmark ApS (ApS=Ltd/LLC). If you want to search for sources on the pre-2007 name include ApS and in quotes: "Dansk Jernbane ApS". Otherwise you could very well end up with a great deal of confusion with Danske Statsbaner. I'm not overly impressed with the hits we get. Leaving out the ApS "Dansk Jernbane" is challenging as you will get hits on dansk jernbane which is simply "Danish railway" and not a proper noun. I'll try to look into it later. Did this help? -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based on the added sources, and move as suggested above. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 05:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep in accordance with Sam Sailor.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:26, 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 keep. Courcelles (talk) 23:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gaylaxy[edit]

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

Non-notable website; fails to meet WP:GNG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article still needs cleanup, but the sources I added will let the article pass WP:GNG easily. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep due to quality and number of sources. Rab V (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good deal of secondary sources out there. WP:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP, but still the article could certainly be improved further. — Cirt (talk) 16:26, 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 speedy delete. G11 "the company has served more than 13,000 happy clients from about 60 countrie" DGG ( talk ) 08:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GetFriday India[edit]

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

Advertising. CSD tag removed by new user. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:52, 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) 23:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jahangir Khanzada[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Mar4d (talk) 08:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , not notable. 39.54.254.31 (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)Prof Hilda Khan, Pakistan[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete shows no notability. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 04:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited. sami ^talk 22:53, 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 Withdrawn by nominator. Giant Snowman 09:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kendell McFayden[edit]

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

Does not meet gng or nsoccer John from Idegon (talk) 06:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NFOOTY as he's played in the USL Pro for Rochester Rhinos, which is a fully-professional league. Number 5 7 09:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NFOOTY - has played for two fully professional teams: the Rhinos and Austin Aztex when they were in the USSF Division 2 Professional League, and there are sufficient reliable sources to document the article. --Trödel 12:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Having played for Rochester, he clearly passes WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 19:24, 11 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]

Keep - with 26 appearances for the Rochester Rhinos that play in the the 3rd tier of professional soccer in the USA, in a league listed at WP:FPL this should not have been nominated for deletion. Particularly as the nomination basis that it doesn't meet WP:NSOCCER is not true. Perhaps User:John from Idegon can withdraw it. Nfitz (talk) 22:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - very confusing notability guideline. Perhaps a soccer expert could add a clear list of what leagues qualify one for notability? John from Idegon (talk) 22:28, 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. This is almost spam spam, this doesn't need any more discussion. Courcelles (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stealthy[edit]

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

Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent RS coverage. Refs provided are to a download site and not sufficient to establish notability. Tagged for notability since 2013. A search turned up other download sites and a few blog entries, but no significant WP:RS coverage. Article content was created by an SPA Jcastros as possibly promotional. Earlier prod was removed by this editor. Dialectric (talk) 04:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 04:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly fails WP:GNG. —C.Fred (talk) 12:20, 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. RockMagnetist(talk) 20:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Carbon Professionals[edit]

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

My searches simply found nothing aside from some links here and this is not surprising considering it was founded in 2011 and started by the group. If it had been mentioned at the University of Edinburgh article, I would've redirected there but it's not so I'd like a consensus how it can be mentioned there. Pinging tagger Trivialist. SwisterTwister talk 23:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:ORG. and no evidence of reliable third party sources. LibStar (talk) 13:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The group only appears to be slightly notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:37, 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) 23:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Video Art Holland[edit]

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

unsourced advertising The Banner talk 21:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Toffanin (talk) 23:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete as my searches found nothing outstandingly good. SwisterTwister talk 07:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:00, 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) 23:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AM Law Firm[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

I do not find that the references are sufficient for this firm to pass WP:CORP. Additionally, the article feels as if it is the firm's web site and is a brochure, not an article about them. Fiddle Faddle 12:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think that the article does not meet the terms of WP:CORP . It has enough references and in my opinion this firm is notable as it has a strong coverage as in Local media so in international media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria step (talk • contribs) 08:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC) — Maria step (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Maria step appears to have a WP:COI, potentially as a senior staff member of the organisation. Fiddle Faddle 09:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a useful article. I found interesting cases here like burberry against jazzve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eduard Melikyan (talk • contribs) 19:02, 11 September 2015‎ — Eduard Melikyan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Speedy delete as spam. We are not a web host for new law firms. In particular, this stub fails every one of my standards for notability of attorneys and law firms. Bearian (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to be a bit too promotional in tone and quality. If it's indeed the coverage of reliable secondary sources independent of the subject itself, then could be target for quality improvement. — Cirt (talk) 16:34, 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 Mawlid. Sandstein 19:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prophet's Day[edit]

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

This was a non notable one off local festival kind of thing celebrated by an almost unknown mullah in Bangladesh two years ago. Calling it a ceremony or festival is ridiculous. I can't find any mention of it being celebrated ever again. As WP is not a newspaper, this should be deleted. It fails GNG very poorly FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 19:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It may not be big in your circle, but was observed again this year in Bangladesh, and received (in addition to the 14 sources cited in the article) sufficient press coverage to meet WP:GNG: [20], [21], [22], [23], etc. Worldbruce (talk) 19:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A merge with Mawlid was proposed outside of AfD in February 2015, but was scuttled in June by a major contributor to the article. I could endorse a forced merge and redirect if there's support for that. Worldbruce (talk) 09:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Mawlid. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 01:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Mawlid, as per above editors. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:30, 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 no consensus. After two relistings, no consensus has formed herein. Closing with the option of WP:NPASR, per lack of adequate input here. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jamiah Islamiah Talimuddin Dabhel[edit]

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

non notable school of Islamists. If we started giving article space to every islamist school there will be almost 1 thousand articles created every day for the next ten years FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Institute is more than 100 year old and has 1000 students. Seems notable.--Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 21:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The outcome of this AFD will hinge on whether this institution is shown to be an "independently accredited degree-awarding institutions" or not and whether "independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists" (see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES). Alternatively, if those criteria aren't met but other criteria in WP:CORP or WP:GNG are met, then the page will probably be kept. As examples of a type of college in the United States which, at least as of 5-8 years ago (my wiki-history is very dated here), could fail at AFD due to lack of accreditation were: 1) Bible colleges, if their accreditation was from only one church/denomination/sect and their credentials were not recognized as "degrees" by any government or other recognized accrediting agency, 2) schools, including graduate schools, that only offered certificates and diplomas but not actual degrees, and 3) all-but-unknown-outside-their-locality community- and junior-colleges that were part of a larger system, such as a county-wide or regional community-college system, provided those schools didn't meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG in their own right (ironically, high schools had an easier time fighting off a "result: redirect" than non-independent associate-degree-only community colleges, mainly because they had sports teams). Having said that, unless the school has been exceedingly obscure for the past 100 years given its present size, it is unlikely, but not WP:SNOW-unlikely, that this institution will fail to meet WP:GNG even if it fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES for some reason or another such as lack of being an "independently accredited degree-awarding institution". davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral pending evidence from independent, reliable sources that this school meets either WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, WP:CORP, WP:GNG, or any other relevant notability guideline. Being "100 years old with 1000 students" is highly suggestive that such sources exist, but not conclusive enough for a "free pass" on finding them. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:59, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 19:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grama Vidiyal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nominating again for clearer consensus as I'm still unsure of its solid notability with my own searches finding nothing particlarly outstanding here, here, here, here and here. Pinging the most still active users @DGG, Molly-in-md, Richhoncho, and Kafka Liz: for comments (unfortunately almost all other editors not active or as active anymore or else I would've pinged them). SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep If it is the larges microfinance organization in India, it's notable. But it would require updating and rewriting. DGG ( talk ) 09:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - still not seeing much that establishes real notability, and the writing is atrocious. *If* the article is kept, it needs some serious work. Kafka Liz (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, and get input from Wikipedians with more relevant local knowledge (for example, Wikiproject India). I hesitate to delete articles about which I know very little, from a country that speaks English but is on the other side of the planet. — Molly-in-md (talk) 19:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:58, 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 redirect to The Last of Us. Already done by Soetermans (non-admin closure) Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 07:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Last of us 2[edit]

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

Purely speculative article about a game that may or may not be made. Falls squarely under WP:CRYSTAL. --Non-Dropframe _talk 03:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect The Last of Us Too soon with no official assets say trailer or (reports of) trade show appearances, only "confirmation" by voice actor. More worrying is the content after the first few sentences, which is in a very weird tone, and feels to myself like some copyvio lifted up from somewhere else. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 06:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Refined to The Last of Us#Adaptations and possible sequel per McGeddon (talk · contribs) in The last of us 2. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 06:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, redirect to The Last of Us#Adaptations and possible sequel in the same way that The Last of Us 2 (capital "U") has been doing for the past year. The new article seems to be drawing from the same 2014 interview sources, only adding a WP:PRIMARY (and possibly faked) LinkedIn screenshot which the editor seems to concede was found among a lot of online "rumours and gossips", and an uncredited copypaste of Hypable's weak analysis of a 2013 Reddit AMA. --McGeddon (talk) 07:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Game not official yet, and technically this mis-capitalization shouldn't ever evolve out of a redirect anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 13:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Last of Us#Adaptations and possible sequel per WP:CRYSTAL. --TL22 (talk) 00:54, 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) 23:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kibow Biotech[edit]

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

I'm not entirely sure if this is notable to Wiki standards and as my searches found nothing good here, here, here, here and here until I found Scholar results here. However, as I'm not familiar with this field, I hope a consensus can be made for this sparsely edited article from July 2009. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no evidence of notability, and considerable promotional content. DGG ( talk ) 18:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Biotech company of unclear notability. The refs provided cover papers by authors associated with the company and are not independent. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 04:49, 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. Sandstein 08:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Cauchon[edit]

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

I'm not entirely sure he's notable and my searches found nothing to suggest improvement here, here and here (these three were the best results I found). For this sparsely edited article from February 2007, the time is now for comments. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: this individual is something of a personality in Quebec City, coverage isn't brilliant but he gets some press mostly about his Nordiques Nation stunts: NYTimes here, Le Droit here, Le Soleil here. Vrac (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically passing mentions in articles about Nordiques Nation events. No significant coverage of him.Jakejr (talk) 14:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I'm just on the other side of the line from Vrac. Not enough substantial coverage to pass WP:GNG, and not enough mentions to qualify for WP:BASIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Delete Main google search is the wikipedia page itself, his twitter, facebook and the radio website itself. Doesn't really seem notable to me.Ljgua124 (talk) 00:19, 20 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) 23:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peace Lines NGO[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG, references that are WP:RS in article contain brief mentions of this org but no significant coverage. Other links appear to be opinion pieces. Deleted from frWP at AFD here. Vrac (talk) 00:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. Edward321 (talk) 13:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- It sounds like a well-meaning but rather small NGO; I may be wrong, but if I am not it is NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 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. 3 weeks, no commentary. treat this like a PROD. Courcelles (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Global Youth Partnership for Africa[edit]

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

My searches simply found no good coverage for this with following results here, here, here (I found the originals here and here). At best, this could've been mentioned elsewhere although there's not much but there's no good target. SwisterTwister talk 03:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:56, 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. – czar 16:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Familia Records[edit]

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

A search for reliable sources independent of the subject came up short, the subject fails WP:GNG or WP:CORP Flat Out (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A couple of passing mentions in the L.A. Times: [24][25], a possible hit in URB (but only an unhelpful snippet is visible) [26], and a mention in a Duke University Press book: [27]. GBooks and GScholar also turned up a few more books that mention this label in discographies of the genre. It's possible that that the label is worthy of note in some context (maybe in an appropriate article about the genre) but in terms of supporting its own article, the online sourcing is sketchy. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Existing sources were for quotes which, as used, were providing substantial content rather than supporting existing content, thus falling afoul of fair use. After pruning those, the only remaining source, that of the ownership of the company, does not appear to be supported by the source given. Crow^Caw 20:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as my searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 22:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches turned up nothing to show that this meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:20, 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 speedy Delete. Procedural close, page was deleted per CSD G5. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Poison In The Grapes[edit]

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

Non-notable film lacking non-trivial support. Fails WP:NOTFILM. reddogsix (talk) 03:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sock comments
Comment - Wikipedia has been trashing this poor guys name and career for years. The article is accurately sourced and meets requirements for notability. on a side note, the film is about how the local media refused to write about the subject matter which explains why there are not more sources for this extremely successful local film release. Please, for once, take the time to do some research before you delete on principle alone. Jacobsladderrack (talk) 04:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment - Nominating an article for deletion is hardly "trashing" of anything. The article is far from adequately sourced - the references do not even mention the article subject. The links that do mention the article are not independent. I find nothing in the article that supports notability. Concerning your side note, if the article lacks references, then simply put, it is not notable. reddogsix (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment From the first article cited: "Matthew Berdyck produced his own documentary on the subject." The article also refers to and points directly at the link to the short film on YouTube," and is completely independent of the original source. Your deletion request, and statements regarding the deletion, are baseless and without merit. User Hellinabucket can be found on previous deletion articles stating, "I would argue for its inclusion based on notability alone." As can be seen on other talk pages about Mr. Berdyck, previous deletions have caused damage to Matthew's reputation as a national activist. The matter was resolved privately between Berdyck and Wikimedia Foundation, it appears.4.35.244.54 (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment The first "reference" is far from non-trivial. A link and a brief mention does not qualify as in-depth. I think you have this a little backwards, your statement of notability is lacking in merit. If you feel it does have merit, please provide what part of WP:NOTFILM the film meets. Please keep in mind that, "To presume notability, reliable sources should have significant coverage." As far as the comment by Hellinabucket, I have no context for the statement, so I cannot comment on it. The comments about Berdyck are irrelevant to this discussion and AfD - and do not interest me. Comment I feel that Wikipedians are directly trying to prevent Mr. Berdyck from obtaining an article. I submit as evidence this article, about another Superfund site, which has no sourcing other than its own website and an Imdb. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_Creek_(film). 330763Time (talk) 02:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Rather than look at this as an adversarial discussion, I suggest you use this as an opportunity to improve the article. It appears you, unlike myself, have a vested interest in resolution of the AfD. I am more than willing to support inclusion if the criteria for inclusion can be met, but as yet, I see nothing that support this. reddogsix (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment' It bothers me that you are trying to paint me as "adversarial" when I am simply stating facts. That seems manipulative and bating. Your judgments of this debate as "adversarial" raise into question your judgments on this article, and every other article you've contributed to. I have noted that you are also one of the editors who was involved in the previous incident involving Mr. Berdyck and that your opinion is colored, biased, and has no place in this discussion. The ABC News piece was created entirely out information from Poison in the Grapes. Thank you in the least "adversarial" way possible. 4.35.244.54 (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment - </sigh> As I indicated Berdyck is not relevant in this discussion - I don't even know who he is or have any idea of what you are referring to when you state I was involved in a discussion with him. With over 33K edits to my account, this does not surprise me. I find it interesting you are concerned by my use of the word adversarial, but you are quick to tell me my "opinion is colored, biased, and has no place in this discussion." I would suggest you read WP:CIVIL, I will do the same, and that we both focus on the issue at hand. The bottom line simply put is the article presents no evidence of notability. Again, I ask you to please provide what part of WP:NOTFILM the film meets. All the rest of the comments are unimportant in the AfD. Provide some support for the article or it will not survive. Again, if the article lacks references, then simply put, it is not notable - regardless of the reason. reddogsix (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sock comments

Comment - Wikipedia has been trashing this poor guys name and career for years. The article is accurately sourced and meets requirements for notability. on a side note, the film is about how the local media refused to write about the subject matter which explains why there are not more sources for this extremely successful local film release. Please, for once, take the time to do some research before you delete on principle alone. Jacobsladderrack (talk) 04:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nominating an article for deletion is hardly "trashing" of anything. The article is far from adequately sourced - the references do not even mention the article subject. The links that do mention the article are not independent. I find nothing in the article that supports notability. Concerning your side note, if the article lacks references, then simply put, it is not notable. reddogsix (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From the first article cited: "Matthew Berdyck produced his own documentary on the subject." The article also refers to and points directly at the link to the short film on YouTube," and is completely independent of the original source. Your deletion request, and statements regarding the deletion, are baseless and without merit. User Hellinabucket can be found on previous deletion articles stating, "I would argue for its inclusion based on notability alone." As can be seen on other talk pages about Mr. Berdyck, previous deletions have caused damage to Matthew's reputation as a national activist. The matter was resolved privately between Berdyck and Wikimedia Foundation, it appears.4.35.244.54 (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first "reference" is far from non-trivial. A link and a brief mention does not qualify as in-depth. I think you have this a little backwards, your statement of notability is lacking in merit. If you feel it does have merit, please provide what part of WP:NOTFILM the film meets. Please keep in mind that, "To presume notability, reliable sources should have significant coverage." As far as the comment by Hellinabucket, I have no context for the statement, so I cannot comment on it. The comments about Berdyck are irrelevant to this discussion and AfD - and do not interest me.

Comment I feel that Wikipedians are directly trying to prevent Mr. Berdyck from obtaining an article. I submit as evidence this article, about another Superfund site, which has no sourcing other than its own website and an Imdb. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_Creek_(film). 330763Time (talk) 02:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than look at this as an adversarial discussion, I suggest you use this as an opportunity to improve the article. It appears you, unlike myself, have a vested interest in resolution of the AfD. I am more than willing to support inclusion if the criteria for inclusion can be met, but as yet, I see nothing that support this. reddogsix (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' It bothers me that you are trying to paint me as "adversarial" when I am simply stating facts. That seems manipulative and bating. Your judgments of this debate as "adversarial" raise into question your judgments on this article, and every other article you've contributed to. I have noted that you are also one of the editors who was involved in the previous incident involving Mr. Berdyck and that your opinion is colored, biased, and has no place in this discussion. The ABC News piece was created entirely out information from Poison in the Grapes. Thank you in the least "adversarial" way possible. 4.35.244.54 (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - </sigh> As I indicated Berdyck is not relevant in this discussion - I don't even know who he is or have any idea of what you are referring to when you state I was involved in a discussion with him. With over 33K edits to my account, this does not surprise me. I find it interesting you are concerned by my use of the word adversarial, but you are quick to tell me my "opinion is colored, biased, and has no place in this discussion." I would suggest you read WP:CIVIL, I will do the same, and that we both focus on the issue at hand.

The bottom line simply put is the article presents no evidence of notability. Again, I ask you to please provide what part of WP:NOTFILM the film meets. All the rest of the comments are unimportant in the AfD. Provide some support for the article or it will not survive. Again, if the article lacks references, then simply put, it is not notable - regardless of the reason. reddogsix (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, neither the film nor Matthew Berdyck seems to meet our basic notability requirements so I'd say delete -- even though I'm quite interested in the film's subject matter, myself. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is Matthew Berdyck. This is now the second time that someone has started an article on this subject.

The first time someone wrote an article about me. Wiki editors focused on the section of the article about Poison in the Grapes, saying that I needed a third party sourcing.

It took me over six months and cost me several thousand dollars to fly to Akron in order to get this article written. The reference provided above is two pieces of content. There is a news article and a TV news piece embedded in that first citation, which is significant coverage.

The news piece was also released on NBC National and published by The Barberton Herald. Your editors have backed me into a corner because I'm the only person who knows all of this info and can provide the sourcing.

I don't know what to do here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.164.25 (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment raises a number of questions in my mind but I'll put those aside, stick to the salient point, and say that notability of a superfund site -- we have many such articles -- doesn't mean a film about such a site is automatically notable. It still has to meet WP:NFILM. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me answer those questions. What is happening here is that after a half a million miles I have made myself grass roots famous by exposing Superfund sites, working the same field as Erin Brockovich, in many of the same cities, including Hinkley. My efforts in Boyd County Kentucky just helped to stop Chris Christie from running the New Jersey garbage train that dumped 45 million tons of garbage into the Big Run Landfill, saving an entire town in the process. If I want media I can have media. This is all going to back fire on you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.164.33 (talk) 01:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In the Wikipedia world, an unsupported statement is just that and certainly worth less than the paper or is written on. If you cannot provide support, the article will be removed as a result of the AfD. I don't know what you mean by, "All this is going to back fire {sic} on you." Are you threatening the editor? reddogsix (talk) 02:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sock comments
Comment Poison in the Grapes is the first short film about a Superfund site to get national media attention, in film history, of two that have been made. The first was a TV broadcast that was never formally released. Matthew Berdyck is the man who exposed the Superfund project. Before he came along, no one in 40 years had written about Superfund sites as a national health issue. Today, everyone from National Geographic to Erin Brockovich are using his research and information. 330763Time (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] I submit this article about a Superfund film with no sourcing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_Creek_(film) 330763Time (talk) 02:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] @330763Time: see WP:OTHERCRAP. -- dsprc ^[talk] 02:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sock comments

Comment Poison in the Grapes is the first short film about a Superfund site to get national media attention, in film history, of two that have been made. The first was a TV broadcast that was never formally released. Matthew Berdyck is the man who exposed the Superfund project. Before he came along, no one in 40 years had written about Superfund sites as a national health issue. Today, everyone from National Geographic to Erin Brockovich are using his research and information. 330763Time (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I submit this article about a Superfund film with no sourcing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_Creek_(film) 330763Time (talk) 02:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@330763Time: see WP:OTHERCRAP. -- dsprc ^[talk] 02:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:NFILM; nothing on Google Scholar for either work[28] or director[29] (as opposed to say, John Pilger [30] and his Cambodia documentary[31], for example). Has no awards, recognition, nor run in major festivals etc. Fails a basic Google test (all SEO, nothing independent) so claim of "get national media attention" falls flat at best. I'm sure the COI IP thinks they're important, too bad no one else seems to share the sentiment and that's why there is no significant coverage for the work. Wikipedia in an encyclopedia with inclusion criteria, this fails to meet even the most basic of them. As for what seems like a THREAT and WIKIBULLYING to get their way with "If I want media I can have media. This is all going to back fire on you.": be my guest. I love hearing about myself; make sure to mention me by name. ;) But it will most likely not end the way you think it will (and if there was actual media coverage, the point would be moot anyway). -- dsprc ^[talk] 02:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think what Matthew meant when he said, "this is going to end poorly for you," is that he has a release going on in LA on 9/23, to 2.1 million people to expose the plume of TCE under Google's Annex building in Mountain View and the cancer cluster in the near vicinity that is being investigated by The State of California. There is a fully funded media and marketing campaign behind the release which will generate hundreds of articles and attention to this talk page which is filled with insults against a man who does nothing but help people. While he might not be on Google scholar, his work and career are paid for by Google employees. Saying, "If I want media I can get media" is not a threat. Your argument that a man who refuses to do media is somehow looking to hear his name is ignorant. http://imgur.com/g6idj9x 330763Time (talk) 02:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not some WP:CRYSTALBALL were we posit what may happen in the future, so if it gets significant coverage then subject would be fine for inclusion. Right now it is WP:TOOSOON. I'm sure there is a marketing campaign behind the release, and behaviour in this discussion leads me to believe Wikipedia article is part of that. If they're not on Google Scholar, and have no significant coverage, then they're not notable (WP:Notability) enough to write about here. Please see WP:GNG, WP:Introduction etc. This discussion is if the subject of this Wikipedia article meets the criteria for inclusion, not your personal opinions on how important you think the subject is. We only care about the opinions of independent WP:THIRDPARTY Reliable sources. -- dsprc ^[talk] 03:15, 12 September 2015

The insults. Oh my. How about that I don't submit my films to festivals because I don't care about winning worthless awards? How about the fact that I have never attempted to submit a film to festivals because I'm an activist more focused on education rather than pointless screenings that will change nothing? I don't even use SEO and I avoid media like the plague because I don't do this for attention. As far as no one sharing the sentiment what do you call the 25,000 residents of Boyd County?

I'm getting shit on for being a humble person. Unfuckingbelievable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.164.57 (talk)

Because of the previous incident I am connected to ten executives at Wikimedia, on LinkedIn, now. I provided an article about a Superfund site that has zero citations which is currently active. My article has four and its being deleted. My statements are being vandalized. Let's take this all the way to the top and let them review your actions.

Have a nice day.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.164.41 (talk)

Wikipedia is a self organizing, user-run, collaborative project; you can spam Wikimedia Foundation all you wish but it won't help your article to stay published and is a waste of time. A better use of time would be to improve the article instead of all this junk here (see: WP:HEY). I struck your comments as they're detrimental to this discussion and are uncivil. IF you wish to report my behaviour as suspected WP:VANDALISM, then WP:AIV is the proper venue for such actions (additionally, there are a number of other links provided at the top of my user page which one may find helpful in navigating the bureaucracy, and my Talk page is open should other assistance be needed). You are of course free to take all the WP:ROPE you require, however. Namaste. -- dsprc ^[talk] 03:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sock comments
Comment Dsprc is doing the exact same thing that happened to Mr Berdyck last time. This is an article about the short film Poison in the Grapes which received national coverage via NBC Universal, and local ABC News, and Barberton Herald. Dsprc is shifting the focus to Matthew who has never claim to be notable, at any time. The repeated insults are meant to bully and disrupt the conversation. Whether Matthew is notable or not has nothing to do with this discussion. 330763Time (talk) 03:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment - the only bullying I see is directed at Dsprc not from him. No one cares who one knows or how many LinkedIn contacts one has. Before we digress into comments about the lizards ruling the world lets focus back on the notability of the article. reddogsix (talk) 03:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] @330763Time: Please try to concentrate on content, not contributors. My focus is purely this documentary listed for discussion. The "media coverage" are less than a handful of passing mentions as best; Wikipedia doesn't do mentions. I have peppered my statements with numerous links to policies, guidelines and general essays which you are most encouraged to review, as you seem to misunderstand the purpose of this discussion. These AfD are usually open for 7 days, so you are encouraged to spend that time improving the article (WP:HEY) by including more citations to reliable sources to support the assertion of significance. I've said all I can and will not respond any further. Namaste. -- dsprc ^[talk] 03:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Alts: type:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) year:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) filmmaker:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Blocked sock comments

Comment Dsprc is doing the exact same thing that happened to Mr Berdyck last time. This is an article about the short film Poison in the Grapes which received national coverage via NBC Universal, and local ABC News, and Barberton Herald. Dsprc is shifting the focus to Matthew who has never claim to be notable, at any time. The repeated insults are meant to bully and disrupt the conversation. Whether Matthew is notable or not has nothing to do with this discussion. 330763Time (talk) 03:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the only bullying I see is directed at Dsprc not from him. No one cares who one knows or how many LinkedIn contacts one has. Before we digress into comments about the lizards ruling the world lets focus back on the notability of the article. reddogsix (talk) 03:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@330763Time: Please try to concentrate on content, not contributors. My focus is purely this documentary listed for discussion. The "media coverage" are less than a handful of passing mentions as best; Wikipedia doesn't do mentions. I have peppered my statements with numerous links to policies, guidelines and general essays which you are most encouraged to review, as you seem to misunderstand the purpose of this discussion. These AfD are usually open for 7 days, so you are encouraged to spend that time improving the article (WP:HEY) by including more citations to reliable sources to support the assertion of significance. I've said all I can and will not respond any further. Namaste. -- dsprc ^[talk] 03:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

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

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

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

Delete for failing WP:NF. I have no pony in this race. The 15-minute documentary exists and can be watched and does relate to a superfund site and public safety issues in Akron, the film was mentioned and filmmaker did speak up on WEWS News Channel 5 in Cleveland, but sorry Matthew... Wikipedia is not an ADVOCATE of even the worst situations even if its editors may have cause to be alarmed at government irresposibility, but a short documentary film has problems when it is not covered more widely in what Wikipedia considers reliable sources. While the film itself fails inclusion guidelines, the situation at the site itself is sourcable and has recived coverage,[32][33] so perhaps it can be redirected someplace where it can be mentioned? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sock comments
Comment Matthew is not the editor. I am. This is a serious issue and I would like to know where I can go to address this, or where Matthew can go. Every time over the last two years that someone has tried to create an article about Matthew's work, which goes back many more years than just advocacy, as he also created two TV shows for Adult Swim, the talk page devolves into insults and ridiculous treatment of a man that wasn't even in the room. The last time, six different editors attacked what they though was him until he later provided evidence that he was in The Everglades with no internet access. It's the same people, too. But, I did take the time to add that source to other articles and Wikipedia editors are deleting the source with the word "irrelevant." This is a witch hunt. 330763Time (talk) 04:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Please see WP:DR, please. reddogsix (talk) 04:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sock comments

Comment Matthew is not the editor. I am. This is a serious issue and I would like to know where I can go to address this, or where Matthew can go. Every time over the last two years that someone has tried to create an article about Matthew's work, which goes back many more years than just advocacy, as he also created two TV shows for Adult Swim, the talk page devolves into insults and ridiculous treatment of a man that wasn't even in the room. The last time, six different editors attacked what they though was him until he later provided evidence that he was in The Everglades with no internet access. It's the same people, too. But, I did take the time to add that source to other articles and Wikipedia editors are deleting the source with the word "irrelevant." This is a witch hunt. 330763Time (talk) 04:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:DR, please. reddogsix (talk) 04:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dsprc did it again. The same thing. He came here, disrupted the article by saying I am not notable, when the article is on another subject, and then tells me to focus on content not contributors, when it was him that derailed the conversation to begin with. 330673Talk is correct. I would like to know who I need to talk to to get this user to stop dragging me into things I have no part of. In my career people are going to try to create articles. I do not deserve to be personally attacked every time that happens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.164.33 (talk) 04:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:DR, please. reddogsix (talk) 04:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to spam Wikimedia. I live in Mountain View. There are Wikimedia execs that live in my building.

Blocked sock comments
comment The old saying goes, "Location, location, location." 330763Time (talk) 04:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Seriously. One time some forum admin for Adobe.com was harassing the shit out of me not being aware that I ride the Caltrain with Adobe Corp people every day. They, also live in my neighborhood along with Wikimedia peeps. It's a simple matter of walking up to your neighbor and saying do you see this crap? Silicon Valley is a very small place and we all ride The Caltrain together. Never saw that admin again, and Adobe personally invited me to their headquarters the next day. Namaste.

Blocked sock comments

comment The old saying goes, "Location, location, location." 330763Time (talk) 04:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously. One time some forum admin for Adobe.com was harassing the shit out of me not being aware that I ride the Caltrain with Adobe Corp people every day. They, also live in my neighborhood along with Wikimedia peeps. It's a simple matter of walking up to your neighbor and saying do you see this crap? Silicon Valley is a very small place and we all ride The Caltrain together. Never saw that admin again, and Adobe personally invited me to their headquarters the next day. Namaste.

Delete and salt. I can't find enough out there to show that this film would pass notability guidelines. As far as the claims here go, I'd recommend against making accusations of harassment since I really can't see where these claims are founded. I also doubt very seriously that Wikimedia will step in here and keep this article, especially given the WP:ADHOMINEM attacks made here against various editors. That it's implied (albeit not outright stated) that they'll do this because you live in a building with several of them doesn't really help you either. Basically, at this point you're doing more to discredit the film and its director than anything else. It also comes across as incredibly unprofessional on his side. As someone who came in here without knowing anything about the director or film, this gives more credence to RedDogSix's claims of non-notability than anything else. It's very, very rare that a notable film or person would have to come into an article and resort to the actions done here. I'd like to ask that you please stop. This AfD will be part of a permanent record on Wikipedia that random people will have the ability to view. A potential investor coming in to look at the director's history will not be impressed by this. Also, I have to point out the irony in the last few fairly abusive posts in response to Schmidt's delete argument. He's probably one of the biggest inclusionists (not that this is a bad thing, mind you) on Wikipedia and will argue vociferously for many articles. For him to argue for deletion is a very, very strong statement towards the film's lack of notability per Wikipedia's guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please avoid arguments that center around the existence of other articles. The existence of a poorly sourced article does not mean that another poorly sourced article should remain. Sometimes these topics are notable and just haven't been properly sourced (as in the case of Tar Creek), but in most cases they just haven't been found and deleted yet. Either way, mentioning the other articles will have no weight here and a better course of action would be to look for sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I should also mention that if you continue to act abusively you run the risk of getting blocked from editing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've opened up an SPI here since it looks fairly likely that this is Middleamericajames fulfilling their promise from last year that they'd make new sockpuppet accounts. It looks like this wasn't the first time this film has been the focus of attention on Wikipedia, as it was the focus of an ANI thread back in March 2014. I also recommend salting this, since there's reason to believe that they will try to recreate the page later on down the line. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobsladderrack and 330763Time are Confirmed socks.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest immediate speedy deletion WP:CSD#5 as an article created by the socks of a master in an an attempt to circumvet his block. I have just tagged the article.Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 14:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. This 15 minute YouTube film comprehensively fails both the General Notability Guidelines and the alternative criteria WP:FILM. Whether it is speedy deleted of deleted per this discussion, the title needs to be salted as was Matthew Berdyck. For background see this, this, and this. Voceditenore (talk) 17:49, 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. – czar 16:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pehchaan (2000)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking secondary sources. IMDb lists it as "Peechan", but that's all I've been able to find. --McGeddon (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fifteen years is certainly long enough for it to have appeared in other sources if it were notable. ubiquity (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

(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)

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

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

Comment: While it is sad that this brand new topic sat for an entire two minutes before being being nominated, I don't read Urdu and am unable to so speedily judge this 15-rear-old pre-internet (there) Pakistani film. But in consideration of WP:WIP, WP:DEADLINE, and WP:IMPERFECT, and in considering the participation of Pakistani director Masud Butt and notables Syed Noor, Moammar Rana, Reema Khan, Saima Noor, Saud, and Shaan Shahid, I choose to await input from Pakistani Wikipedians, better able to find and offer sources. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of old Pakistani films are not covered in any news on web. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 04:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this one could be worth another week, see if any more work is done for sourcing. Courcelles (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting again in the hopes that we can recieve a definitive answer on available sourcing. I also posted a message on Wikiproject Pakistan to see if anyone there can help determine the notability of this article. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:26, 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 redirect to Rahbani brothers. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elias Rahbani[edit]

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

Does not meet general notability guidelines. Notability is not inherited from his brothers or other family members. ubiquity (talk) 02:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect / Merge over to the Rahbani brothers page CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I suppose as News and Books actually found several results to suggest he's well known in Lebanon but this would need familiar attention for better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 22:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rahbani brothers as above editors. Not enough notability for own page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:16, 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 delete and redirect to Epoch Networks. Sandstein 19:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Purcell[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

His first firm, Epoch Networks, may be of some historical importance. But I don'�t see how anything in his career is independently notable DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It looks like whatever notability he has is generally linked to being a part of Epoch Networks, which was and is a reasonably important organization it seems. Notability isn't temporary, but it looks like he's not really well known. The company is. I wouldn't be opposed to a redirect over to that page, I guess. I would delete Purcell's own article due to the lack of established reliable source coverage. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability of even a CEO is not automatically inherited. In this case, (a) the firms he has worked for or created are not that notable, and (b) there is scant information online about him. I'm willing to change my mind if somebody can fix this mess of "cites needed". Bearian (talk) 02:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Epoch Networks as it would appear that company is notable especially as it was the first of its kind and he's best known for that. SwisterTwister talk 22:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Epoch Networks as per nom and above editors. Nothing on searches to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:07, 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 delete. Sandstein 19:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Social injustice[edit]

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

Superfluous: it's just the inverse of social justice. The content is of no utility, and reminds me of a student faking it when they haven't really studied the subject they are supposed to be writing an essay about. Orange Mike | Talk 01:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable enough to warrant an article of its own when it is just an inversion on social justice. Kierzek (talk) 02:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect to social justice. While the mere fact that it's the opposite or inverse of another topic/article doesn't necessarily mean it's redundant, in this case it certainly seems to be. The only sentence which suggests the possibility of a separate subject is "Social injustice is used as a slogan by certain societies to oppose other societies' definition of social justice", but even insofar as that could be treated as a distinct subject (a stretch), it would still best be covered in the social justice article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per OrangeMike.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced, and ORish. All can be discussed in social justice, per Mike. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:29, 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 19:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Freja Film[edit]

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

non-notable organization - PROD declined. Standard searches do not reveal enough significant coverage in independent reliable sources. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 00:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 00:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 00:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree that it seems like notability isn't really established. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I endorsed the PROD as failing WP:GNG. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 03:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No Not Delete Important cultural organisation for women in film in Sweden and an international contact center for women in film globally in the 1980's. Should be culturally preserved. Women's history should not be erased. Filmartiste 05:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjsullus (talk • contribs) 05:44, 11 September 2015
Comment: I have deleted the following commentary which had been added to the main article[34], but it could be regarded as a misplaced contribution to this AfD debate: "In September 2015, this entry in Wikipedia is being debated about being deleted by a few individuals who if this does happen, do not think it is important to preserve the history of women in film which has been historically erased. The criteria for erasure is that the group can't be found in mechanical "search" engines, robots. ". AllyD (talk) 07:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: also note, the same user has left a message on this AFDs talk page. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If that kind of extremely disruptive behavior happens again, I think going to administrators to give notice would be justified. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment yes that was a misplaced contribution to the AfD debate. It is not always easy to navigate Wikipedia and where the right things should go. RE: assumption made by Coffee withMarkets.Filmartiste 09:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjsullus (talk • contribs) 09:00, 11 September 2015
Comment the entry now does have references to important historical organizations and women from this time and has been cross-referenced. The women's film movement in Sweden was important and wold recognized. Freja Film was part of this. Contributions for women in film culture attracted global attention. UNESCO organized a conference in 1981 for this purpose- International Feminist Film and Video Conference in Amsterdam, and Freja Film was designated the world contact organisation. Thanks for your consideration.Filmartiste 09:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjsullus (talk • contribs) 09:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now. Certainly the article is poorly written per MOS:, but if notability through translated non-English coverage can be established, we have a topic that could be savable, as notable even if only to Sweden, is enough for en.Wikipedia. Swedish Wikipedians... opinions? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The organisation was part of an international movement of women in film. Research about how to improve this was established by a program in UNESCO in 1980. Cinemien, (Netherlands), a feminist film collective organized a conference during UN Women's Year 1980 that is well documented - the First international feminist film and video conference in Amsterdam, (1981) which is also well documented. This is the Swedish organisation that was working as other organisations like Cinemein for creating accessible media and film for women in their country. At the conference, Freja Film was designated Filmartiste 08:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC) the international contact group for the 1981 conference funded by UNESCO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjsullus (talk • contribs)

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

Delete searches on engines turned up very little. A few brief mentions on Books, absolutely nothing on News, Highbeam, JSTOR or Scholar. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:02, 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 delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Bahou[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No claim at all to notability. Previous AFD ended in no consensus. JDDJS (talk) 00:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete, not notable. Kierzek (talk) 02:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nominator. The one notable photo was covered widely, but mostly on viral entertainment sites. New Media Theorist (talk) 02:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as my searches found nothing better. Pinging previous users Wikimandia and Wgolf. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my previous comment - just squeaks by in notability but manages it —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ARTIST and WP:ANYBIO.--Savonneux (talk) 06:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:40, 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.