< 15 August 17 August >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. blatant spam Jimfbleak (talk) 12:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taxzippy[edit]

Taxzippy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software: only one RS; the rest are mentions and purely trivial mentions. — Esquivalience (talk) 21:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Numerically, we're at 22 delete to 12 keep, which is a substantial majority but not quite consensus. The arguments boil down to "it's reliably sourced" vs. "it's a synthesized fringe coatrack." These are all valid opinions within the range of editorial judgment usually applied to articles of this type, so I can't determine whose arguments ought to carry more weight. Because of the close outcome, a relatively quick renomination (on the order of days) might be appropriate.  Sandstein  19:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theories of the United states presidential election, 2016[edit]

Conspiracy theories of the United states presidential election, 2016 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A hodge-podge coatrack of mostly mistitled and unrelated conspiracy theories, none of which independently arise to the standard of notability we require for an article about an ongoing event. Salimfadhley (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, by comparison, in a related AfD BlueSalix noted the case of Boyd Bushman as an example of PROFRINGE, while explaining this is not a case of that. LavaBaron (talk) 21:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They're in the section titled "references." LavaBaron (talk) 23:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Care to highlight any? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Harper's Magazine, New York Times, Washington Post, Media Matters for America, Snopes, Slate, NBC News, The Intercept, Gawker, Real Clear Politics, and Huffington Post. LavaBaron (talk) 23:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...Ok, let's look at each one.
  • Harper's - published in 1964. Not likely about conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election of 2016.
  • New York Times - There are zero NY Times citations in the article.
  • Washington Post - I guess you could mean either of two:
  • One is about a particular conspiracy theory: Hillary's neurological health. This one is the best source in the article you created about that rumor, Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor, which is presently snowballing at another AfD.
  • The other one is about a particular conspiracy theory: Trump as a plant to support Hillary.
  • Media Matters - Hannity said something about Hillary's health. Nothing here about the subject of this page. Just another example.
  • Snopes - Not a typical one to highlight, but again, there are two:
  • One is also about the Hillary neurological health conspiracy theory.
  • The other is also about Trump as a plant for Hillary.
  • Slate - Doesn't even mention anything being a conspiracy theory. It's about the specific example of the supposed Trump-Putin connection (which other sources have called a conspiracy theory). Still not about the subject of this page, though.
  • NBC News - Also doesn't mention "conspiracy theory". About the specific example of Trump's "rigged" election.
  • The Intercept - About the specific example of the Trump-Putin conspiracy theory.
  • Gawker - Two articles from Gawker, both about the specific example of Trump being a plant for Hillary.
  • Real Clear Politics - About the specific example of Hillary's neurological health.
  • Huffington Post - About the specific example of Trump being a plant for Hillary.
Not even one of these supports the notability of this page, which requires not a bunch of sources about a bunch of specific examples of stories that have been called conspiracy theories, but sources about the group that is "conspiracy theories of the 2016 election". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Simply listing every reference in the article and then yelling "irrelevant!" doesn't do much to make your case. Sources do not need to (and rarely do they) reference the title of a WP article verbatim. That's not how this works. I'm shocked you believe it is. (Also, please dial it back to about a 9. Thanks.) LavaBaron (talk) 03:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a weird response (assuming it's neither disingenuous nor an intentional misrepresentation). Where have I said they need to reference the title of an article verbatim? They merely have to be about the subject of the article, and not simply about examples you've decided are part of a larger subject. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They're all directly about the subject of the article. The fact you're doubling down on the idea they're not, when anyone can click on any of them and read them, seems to be indicating you're either (A) hoping no one will, or, (B) claiming hey have to reference the subject by name. Which is sort-of ... odd. LavaBaron (talk) 05:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fox News Latino: discusses Trump plant theory and Putin agent theory, along with Trump campaign's support for various others
  • Chicago Tribune op-ed: "Donald Trump loves conspiracy theories. So do his foes." Describes many, on both sides, in detail
  • CBS: titled "A guide to the conspiracy theories about Donald Trump"
  • CNN: "the Republican presidential nominee has repeatedly amplified and offered roundabout endorsements to conspiracy theories"
  • NBC: titled "Trump's Conspiracy Theories Aren't Far Outside GOP Mainstream"
  • Slate (partisan): titled "The Real Meaning of All Those Right-Wing Conspiracy Theories About Hillary’s Health"
Together, there's enough material to justify a respectable introduction and summary to meet LISTN. FourViolas (talk) 05:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Those are substantially better than anything in the article currently. Might be enough for me -- will come back to this later. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let me tell you... if you want to get right to the bottom of something. a quality survey on a short schedule, FourViolas is the guy you want. EEng 19:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aw, shucks. But here are a few more good ones if you're on the fence:
  • a NYT op-ed by Middle East foreign policy experts looks at the effect Trump's are already having in the Middle East
  • A WaPo news article ties them into other Middle East CTs.
  • The Daily Beast reports on a quantitative analysis of Trump's supporters' affinity for CT-related topics
  • Politico covers a meta-debate over the consequences and proper response to all this conspiracy theorizing.
Wondering if MjolnirPants noticed these when coming to the conclusion that "there are no sources discussing these theories as part of this election." FourViolas (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wondering if FourViolas ignored the rest of my post in favor of quoting the one part that could be taken out of context so easily. Not trying to be a dick, but seriously: my whole comment was about how we haven't hit the end of the conspiracy theories yet. More are all but guaranteed. It's not rocket surgery to assume I meant that particular sentence in the same context. Just to be clear, I've edited my original comment. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it was an honest question; it's easy to miss things, and you didn't mention them. But I don't understand the rest of your rationale. Since we do have RS analyzing and commenting on the phenomenon as a whole (so far), I don't see a policy-based reason to refrain from writing an article until the election season is over. You might as well say we should delete Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016, because there's no way to know what the long-term outcome or lingering effects will be. FourViolas (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...it's easy to miss things, and you didn't mention them. Fair enough, now let's not discuss that point any more. It won't advance this discussion and could turn things adversarial. As it is, I am writing with a smile on my face, so let's keep it that way.
You might as well say we should delete Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016, because there's no way to know what the long-term outcome or lingering effects will be. Yep. I'd vastly prefer to wait until the campaign was over to write that article. But (and of course, there's a but) that article doesn't have the potential for abuse and drama this one has, and that's a big factor in my vote. So I'll deal with having an article about her campaign before it's done because that's only going to attract the usual drama of random IPs adding weasel words and the occasional rabidly-anti-Hillary editor wanting to insert something about some conspiracy theory about her. The conspiracy theory article, on the other hand, is going to be a magnet for every far-right and far-left editor we have (and, given the nature of this election, a good chunk of the moderate-left and moderate-right editors) to butt heads over how to describe each conspiracy theory and how much weight to lend Every. Goddamned. Sentence. That smacking sound you hear, by the way, is me facepalming at the mere thought of all that drama. (it's a truly epic facepalm. The facepalm heard 'round the world, as it were.) However, if we wait until the election is done, we can at least point to sources analyzing the theories with the benefit of hindsight, making for sources which are much clearer in their tone and depictions, and not focused on debunking. That, then makes it easier for whichever editor is going by the source to win that particular fight. So at least they'll be quicker fights if we wait. I dread the thought of the drama on that talk page the week before election day if we keep it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You got an honest laugh out of me, too! Thank you very much for the detailed explanation; I see where you're coming from, and the desire to protect the wiki from nightmarish election drama is a fair IARgument. I'm personally willing to cross my fingers, grit my teeth, and pray to the page protection gods, but you have a good point. FourViolas (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Coming back to this, I'm still of the position that this should be deleted. While there are sources about people using conspiracy theories as a tactic, about there being a number of them out there this election cycle, etc. I'm still not seeing a distinct encyclopedic subject here -- not any more than we could pull sources together to create list of smears of the 2016 election, controversies of the 2016 election, lies of the 2016 election, etc. There are reliable sources about all of those, but the subjects discussed are actually tactics of the candidates and their supporters (i.e. the campaigns, the issues, and in rare cases the specific controversies/conspiracies/smears/scandals/whatever other style of coats we might put on a rack). I want to add, as well, that the content of the article is basically a recreation of two of LavaBaron's other articles -- one deleted (Clinton brain damage conspiracy theory), one still up (Trump plant theory) -- and almost nothing else. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MjolnirPants not sure I agree yet, but you have some valid points I'm going to marinate on and reconsider my own !vote in light of; thanks for providing such a thorough comment and rationale. LavaBaron (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'm inclined to keep, you have a point that this is going to be a major foolishness magnet - David Gerard (talk) 18:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A "foolishness magnet" is exactly what we need to focus such allegations in an easily-manageable space; this will save countless headaches elsewhere. Besides it is encyclopedic in demonstrating the absurdity of fringe theories on both sides of this political choice. — JFG talk 14:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're assuming that there's a finite pool of foolishness into which this article will dip, drawing foolishness from other articles. I, on the other hand, hold as gospel truth that (almost certainly apocryphal) old 'Einstein' quote. "Only two things are infinite; the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ONEWAY is a powerful tool for shooing fringe theorists away from main articles and towards this one. This one can in turn be handled using already-established discretionary sanctions, including protection. WP has taken on human stupidity in the past, and...well, mostly survived. FourViolas (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That still doesn't address my point (which I admit I implied instead of stating). I don't think that one article being a hotbed of drama is going to tamp down on the drama going on anywhere else. I've seen with my own eyes how an editor involved in one case of drama can get just as caught up in one or more other cases of drama. I mean, seriously: Do we really think that adding an article ripe for controversy (while dampening our ability to appeal to our Almighty Lord of All, the Reliable Source (hallowed be their urls)) is going to make for less controversy? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just addressed most of those concerns, but they're all content-related. Do you have an opinion on the inherent notability of the topic?FourViolas (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An extraordinary interdisciplinary consensus of psychologists, psychiatrists, psychoanalysts, neuroscientists, clinical social workers, psychiatric nurses, neurologists, therapists, psychometricians, and other mental health professionals have expressed their worries that, in their professional opinion, Trump suffers from a serious, disabling mental illness-- of an order of magnitutde greater than the usual low-level mental disturbance required to enter politics. This view has also been voiced, and endorsed, by prominent laypersons. According to a widely published report, Trump requires an extraordinarily potent cocktail of mind-altering drugs and a round-the-clock regimen of psychoanalysis to manage his fragile psyche."[1]

References

  1. ^ https://www.sott.net/article/314132-I-suffer-from-severe-psychological-issues-and-I-need-the-help-of-mental-health-professionals-says-Trump
K.e.coffman (talk) 05:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I concur with the above. As written, the article appears to be about "Media coverage of conspiracy theories (...)", not about the theories themselves. The topic is ill defined and is not suitable for an encyclopedia article yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except not a single one of the 39 references in this article are blogs, unless you count Politico, Washington Post, Huffington Post, CBS News, MSNBC, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, CNN, and The Guardian as "blogs". LavaBaron (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except (quote from the article): "The following Monday the National Enquirer ran a front-page feature titled "Hillary Clinton's Secret Health Crisis" while the Drudge Report posted a photo showing Clinton tripping on a flight of stairs, in which it was insinuated the accident was a result of medical issues." cited to this: Collins, Ben (August 9, 2016). "'Is Hillary Dying' Hoax Started by Pal of Alex Jones". The Daily Beast. Retrieved August 10, 2016.. Blogosphere garbage echoing blogosphere garbage.. Jytdog (talk) 06:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you look at the sources, virtually all of them specifically address these as conspiracy theories; we haven't assigned that moniker to these and then just strung them together. So, no, it's not SYNTH. For instance, this Politico article titled " The 5 Most Dangerous Conspiracy Theories of 2016" [1] etc. LavaBaron (talk) 04:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's say 5 sources publish articles with titles like "Top 10 Models of 2016", with 8 of the names the same across all 5 articles. That wouldn't justify us having a "Top 10 Models of 2016" article. EEng 04:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? LavaBaron (talk) 04:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. EEng 05:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I think the synth in question is the taking of 5 different X's, from 5 different sources, and combining that into List of X's. (I had absurdly hoped that we would actually have an article called "List of X's", but nope. It's a redlink. Sigh.) Each X might be sourced independently, but that means there are no sources talking about the List of X's, except Wikipedia. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 05:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but no idea what you just said. Each example listed here has been positively identified as a "conspiracy theory" by multiple RS. LavaBaron (talk) 05:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, how to explain this... Synthesis of information is a very nuanced subject. What he's saying is (I believe) that we lack sources discussing the phenomenon of conspiracy theories in respect to this election. We also lack sources discussing the combined aspects of those conspiracy theories that have popped up in this election. No-one is suggesting that calling them conspiracy theories itself is synth, but rather that having an article about them as a whole is. Now, this particular problem has an easy solution: make an article about each conspiracy theory. That wouldn't be synth. But having an article about all of them as a phenomenon (which is what this article is) requires us to analyze them as a whole, rather than reporting what RSs say about them. Do you get what I mean? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, so how about renaming the page to "Unfounded rumors in the US presidential election, 2016"? — JFG talk 11:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at our present article, I am sure that after the election there will be academic discussion about what role these theories had in affecting the outcome of the election. The theories about the winner will live on; some will believe Clinton cheated if she wins, or others will continue to question Trump's ties with Putin if he wins. Ultimately, the truly relevant and notable theories will have their own articles, a list of them may be necessary depending on their number, plus an article under the current title will exist to discuss the effect these theories did or did not have. But until the dust has settled, this article in its current state is synthesising too many things under one umbrella. Move it to user space for now, because I'm certain it will be useful in the not too distant future. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poly-MVA[edit]

Poly-MVA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Purported CAM modality with no indication of notability beyond inclusion in a directory. This topic falls way below the standard required of a medical topic. Salimfadhley (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Salimfadhley: what is the "directory" you refer to (I see Quackwatch have it on a list here). The text of the ACS content is pretty much all avaialble here. Alexbrn (talk) 04:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kristine French[edit]

Kristine French (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Supplied references are grossly insufficient to establish notability. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Galletti[edit]

Ray Galletti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Zero reliable sources or evidence of notability. Prod removed on completely spurious grounds. —swpbT 13:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —swpbT 13:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —swpbT 13:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article does have a source, Imdb. Also the PROD was not spurious. Anyone can object to a WP:PROD. Giving a reason for doing so is optional....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To editor WilliamJE: IMDB is not a reliable source. It has never been a reliable source. Its content is user-submitted. Yes, giving a reason for prod-removal is optional, but if a reason is given, it shouldn't be based on a falsehood, as this was. The reason given in the edit summary was "makes a claim to notability, so passes PROD". Well, that doesn't reflect what WP:PROD says at all. It suggests a policy stance that does not exist, and never has. —swpbT 17:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No number of credits confers an automatic GNG pass because listed — GNG is a measure of the quality of sourcing that can or cannot be provided to support the article, not of what the article says. Bearcat (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 talk 12:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter action figures[edit]

Harry Potter action figures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is just a trivial list of toys better suited to a Wikia article. TTN (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ron e Polo[edit]

Ron e Polo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable artist. The only really in-depth independant coverage in the references is this one in a local paper. The rest are artist-submitted bios, download sites, videos from the artist, a bare mention or do not mention the subject. A search did not find anything better. This artist may one day be notable but is not currently there. Happy Squirrel (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nomination was shown to be incorrect. Amalthea 08:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Busch[edit]

Arthur Busch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Assertion of notability is made, but I find no source to support the claim. In particular, no Arthur Busch is mentioned in http://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/countries/AUS/summer/1968/HOK/ which is used to source Field hockey at the 1968 Summer Olympics Amalthea 19:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article now has five references. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

V1 Ltd[edit]

V1 Ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I still confirm everything from my now-removed PROD, none of this is actually substantial or convincing. SwisterTwister talk 21:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harmonize America Mall Tour[edit]

Harmonize America Mall Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This promotional tour hasn't been covered by the media. Sources are poor. Just like the group's prev minor tours Fifth Harmony Theatre Tour and Worst Kept Secret Tour. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ansh666 21:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BrickArms[edit]

BrickArms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD removed with the basis of the listed sources being enough for notability but this is all because the company was involved with a "terror" event or also because of its "LEGO designer", Will Chapman, and there's essentially nothing else. There's still nothing actually suggestive of convincing. SwisterTwister talk 15:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 15:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 16:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wine-Searcher[edit]

Wine-Searcher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedied as a G11 (promotional) but does appear to have a number of 3rd party sources, bringing to AfD for further review. Black Kite (talk) 12:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 13:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Armenian National Agrarian University. MBisanz talk 01:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agribusiness Teaching Center[edit]

Agribusiness Teaching Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable academic organization; article history is replete with copyvios, promotional text, and directory-style organizational information. I see no sourcing that allows this to pass the GNG. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ICARE Foundation. A redirect to Armenian National Agrarian University is a possibility as well. Drmies (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 02:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Duncan[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ron Duncan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I honestly have no idea why this article was re-created. Same issues from the first time around, not enough reliable sources devoted to the subject. The subject is briefly mentioned in one sentence or a group of names without any notable accomplishments described in detail about him. In fact, the only sources that note Duncan in detail (as in more than one sentence) is his own website. ALongStay (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was a further AfD see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronald Duncan (martial arts) (2nd nomination) All resulted in a delete.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep He is considered to be the Father of American Ninjutsu. [12]. This was reported by Black Belt Magazine which is considered to be a strong source within the martial arts community. Also if you look at the March 2013 article from Black Belt Magazine, there is an article about his life. This article can be seen here [13] Cantloginnow (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2016 (UTC)— cantloginnow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Cantloginnow is believed to be another CrazyAces489 sockpuppet. Papaursa (talk) 23:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was in the same place last year. I thought he probably was notable enough, but I'm not seeing the coverage to support it. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is this another sockpuppet? Same argument wording as made by 64.134.102.6 and Cantloginnow.Jakejr (talk) 00:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PPMC[edit]

PPMC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Minecraft server D3RP4L3RT (DERPALERT) (talk) 19:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jan Skala. (non-admin closure) ansh666 21:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jugoslovenima[edit]

Jugoslovenima (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG, per source searches. North America1000 06:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Definitely, it does: The poem is a cry for help to the Yugoslav people to stop the German persecution on Sorbs in Lusatia. Now, about the notability. It was translated into Serbian and published in Летопис Матице српске - Volume 323 1930 - Page 264. First published in his book of poetry "Drobjence" ("The Crumbs") in 1920, then in Jan Skala, Ludowe nakładnistwo Domowina, 1985, mentioned/published in two other books (Peter Jan Joachim Kroh: Nationalistische Macht und nationale Minderheit: Jan Skala (1889-1945) : ein Sorbe in Deutschland, Robert Elsie: Anthology of Sorbian poetry: from the sixteenth century to the present day : a rock against these alien waves, UNESCO/Forest Books, 1990 )--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Limelight Software[edit]

Limelight Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:GNG. Source searches are not providing enough coverage to qualify an article. North America1000 06:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there are 2 unrelated companies with similar names. Limelight Networks is not the subject of this afd. 'Limelight Software' is focused on developing music-related software and apps.Dialectric (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nunbait[edit]

Nunbait (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:BAND. Source searches are only providing passing mentions, such as this. North America1000 06:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is another good article in The Sydney Morning Herald.
Danielson, Shane (12 June 1992). "Nun of a kind". The Sydney Morning Herald.
Then there's Bob Blunt's Blunt : a biased history of Australian rock [16]. I don't have access to it but various things suggest they are covered in this book, could anyone with access have a look? They appear on the CDs that come with the book Who Cares Win on CD2, Animal. Track 12 Nunbait - "Poor Henry". Decent coverage in the book would confirm notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Staunton[edit]

Ted Staunton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Lack of substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. (All the references are either his own web site or goodreads.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Sam Sailor 04:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of phobias[edit]

List of phobias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This supposed list has two problems. First, it is actually two lists. There's something to be said for the lists of prejudice "phobias" but it doesn't belong here. Second, the first list is out of step with current clinical practice. These are all specific phobias, but with rare exceptions these words are a function of people making up names for particular things to be afraid of. By and large they only exist in a few books/websites which contain such a list, and people copying from said works. We shouldn't be doing that copying. Mangoe (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What does it mean to say that any of them exist? If you said, "I'm afraid of lizards", and I said, "clearly you have lacertophobia", well, your fear is real enough, but "lacertophobia" is just a word which may or may not be in some list somewhere. The point is that the name for all of them is "specific phobia"; people can make up lists of names and put them in books, but psychologists don't use those names, as far as I can tell, and from the point of view of diagnosis and possible treatment, one is like unto another. You can see this in the articles, many of list have the definition and then the same boilerplate text about phobias in general. Mangoe (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that this is a list of notable phobias, or that it should be. I'm not sure that the list should exist at all, but if it does exist it should be a list of verifiable phobias. Specifically, a list page like this is a good place to collect entries that are found to be verifiable and worthy of mention in the encyclopedia, but which aren't notable enough to merit having an article of their own.--Srleffler (talk) 02:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The contention is that it is not a list of notable phobias, because specific fears are not as a rule notable. Mangoe (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but there are plenty of phobias that are notable, and those are the ones that are listed. -- Tavix (talk) 21:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are very few phobias that are notable as individual fears. Most of these seem to have been made up as a project in giving everything a name, but clinically everything here falls under specific phobia. Mangoe (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the problem: what happens when this gets reduced to a relatively small number of entries which can be justified on the basis of common popular usage? At that point, it makes more sense to fold it back into the main article, where it can perhaps be defended. As long as it is a separate article, passers-by and "always improvers" will keep trying to copy the couple of lists that are out there back into the article, because that is what one does to list articles. Mangoe (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 13:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paulina James[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Paulina James (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No qualifying awards, just nominations. Little or no independent reliable sourcing. No relevant nontrivial GBooks hits. Almost entirely dependent on promotional sourcing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

925five Records[edit]

925five Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article for a non-notable record company. Contested speedy. --Finngall talk 17:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There were some sources discovered during the course of the AfD, but those sources didn't gain any traction convincing the other discussants.

There's a suggestion that even if the company is not notable, their products might be. But, there was no significant discussion on that, so whether an article could be written about the product remains an open question. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KnowledgeTree[edit]

AfDs for this article:
KnowledgeTree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An amazing example how we have changed since 2009, we unfortunately have to use AfD instead as I frankly would've PRODed myself, my searches have noticeably found nothing better as the current sources are nowhere near convincing; simply not the needed substance. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This would still not enough as the coversge itself is simply about either their funding and financing, relocating and other usual business activities such as interviews, none of it is substantial. SwisterTwister talk 22:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the things you mention - funding, interviews, financing, etc. - are what usually makes a business notable. I agree that the relocation to the historic building is more notable for nearby residents familiar with the sign, but I'll leave it in. Being listed as a top ten vendor in the SaaS space and an emerging vendor to watch by two different noted tech pubs suggest this is a refimprove candidate rather than a delete, but let's see what others think.Timtempleton (talk) 23:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will simply note that several other AfDs have noted that while a considerable amount of such coverage could be notable and acceptable, it's still not convincing enough for notability as that's also simply information about its activities and there has been consensus showing this is also advert-like such as for enticing investors and clients. SwisterTwister talk 00:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully I purged the advert stuff - I don't like that any more than you do. I cringed when I viewed the first version of this article from almost ten years ago, written by the founder no less. Since none of the sources I used existed then, it would have almost certainly been immediately speedily deleted.Timtempleton (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
However, I'm seeing discussions on the product in Google books, such as [Sarbanes-Oxley IT Compliance Using Open Source Tools by Christian B Lahti, Roderick Peterson and Adaptable and Adaptive Hypermedia Systems edited by Sherry Y. Chen, George D. Magoulas, among others. So it looks to me that the product may be notable, while the company is not. Edit: some of what comes up in Google Books may not be about this company / product (i.e. eLearning environment, my last link), But the SOX content is about the subject since it includes the URL of the company. It appears that they refocused on sales & marketing content in the recent years, vs general document management. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bespoke Post[edit]

Bespoke Post (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a company that is of questionable notability. Initially, a search suggests that there is quite a lot of coverage, but on closer inspection, much of this appears to consist of "advertorial"-type content. The company seems to have generated a lot of this, but it isn't independent. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of demon lords in Dungeons & Dragons.  Sandstein  19:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kostchtchie[edit]

Kostchtchie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This character fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I fail to see how that at all passes the notability guideline. Neither is significant in its coverage and neither provides any real world information. They're just both fiction/setting guides for games. It certainly passes WP:V, but it's a huge stretch to say it comes anywhere near passing WP:N. It seems more like you're objecting for the sake of objecting. There are no exact procedural rules, so saying there's really no justification in saying this is somehow premature in procedure. Procedurally, this shouldn't have ever been created in the first place without fitting proper criteria to split it out from a parent article. TTN (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • A fictional element showing up in derivative games IS real-world impact. Jclemens (talk) 04:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • They're using these characters under some kind of license from WotC, so I'm really not sure if those even truly count as secondary. Even if that is the case, you're missing the significant coverage part. "Character x appears in game y by company z" is trivial at best, and it's certainly not enough to hold an article on its own. It's no better than "character x appears in game y by 'parent company'" in terms of establishing notability. TTN (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are they? It's an interesting assertion, but even if true wouldn't impair independence. Fictional elements used in other games aren't trivial references, because they are part of the game experience. I'm not sure what you're thinking by saying that, because the quote you're using as a template/example isn't what's happening here. Jclemens (talk) 04:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Citing that the character exists in a game is completely trivial in both the standards of the source and the standards of sourcing an article. It is literally just saying "this topic exists", that it is one of dozens, hundreds, or thousands of fictional minutia that make up the body of a larger work. It's no different from someone claiming something like "the character is mentioned in these eight analytical books", but each one is nothing but a single namedrop used in reference to the actual subject of the page. Both are completely worthless as sources. You'd have a point if this single character was handpicked from D&D for inclusion in another game, and that the status of being handpicked was documented in a reliable source. TTN (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • What, you want an entire game centered around a particular fictional element in order for it to be notable? I know we disagree on notability of fictional elements, but that seems a preposterously high level of coverage to demand. I find what we have demonstrated in this case sufficient. Jclemens (talk) 04:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • You're talking about one of many trivial characters in an essentially copied and pasted D&D setting under an official license. This single character is not at all special or notable in its inclusion. Looking at just the "Tome of Horrors Revised" index, there are 50-ish demons (out of 400 monsters), all of which I put into Google are directly ported from D&D. As far as I can tel, all or the great majority of the 400 monsters included in that book are also directly ported. That is truly the definition of trivial when comparing that single character to the entire scope of that publisher's work. If you truly think every single one of those warrants an article due to that, then the difference between our two viewpoints is too great for further discussion to have any merit. TTN (talk) 18:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: deleted by User:RHaworth. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Fuad Halim[edit]

Dr. Fuad Halim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Inadequate claim of notability. Notability is not inherited (from his father or otherwise or from his non-profit, which also probably is not notable). Robert McClenon (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Rabiega[edit]

Vincent Rabiega (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue against deletion. Vincent Rabiega has completed a transfer to Bradford City A.F.C. and is elegible for selection in this evenings squad against MK Dons. Kcleworth (talk) 16:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should not be deleted in my opinion. The page exists in Polish and should also be kept in English for the time being. He only signed for Bradford City today and was immediately named on the substitutes bench. He is a junior international and is likely to make a first team appearance for his new club imminently which would only result in the page having to be generated again were it to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:8060:3100:6144:33A2:2EA7:6406 (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. See CSD G6 for routine housekeeping. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Innovators[edit]

Capital Innovators (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article was moved to a draft, which causes there to be no need for this page at the moment. Woodstop45 (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Japoodle[edit]

Japoodle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be a designer of dog that was made up one day. I can see the breed cross-checked in Twitter and various other social media outlets, but I can't find any obvious news outlets that would enable us to write a good encyclopedia article on this topic. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America1000 15:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Basped[edit]

Kevin Basped (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Basped does not pass the notability guidelines for gridiron football. His college career was not enough to rise to the level of notability. Beyond this he never played in an actual NFL game. John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marion Christopher Barry[edit]

Marion Christopher Barry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(({text))} Barrybrigade (talk) 13:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)Creating deletion discussion for Marion Christopher Barry[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Public domain book[edit]

Public domain book (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The lead section merely repeats information from Public domain. The rest is an arbitrary collection of links to articles on books that are in the public domain. There are thousands of books that could potentially be listed here. If we really want to list all public domain books, this should be handled with a category instead. In fact, such a category already exists. Hairy Dude (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Belatedly informed sole contributor User:P2prules. I misinterpreted the "inform AfD monitors" part of the AfD instructions and somehow thought it also informed contributors. Hairy Dude (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of popular softwares[edit]

List of popular softwares (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:NOTCATALOG. Indiscriminate list something that can never be reasonably completed and has extremely general criteria for inclusion. Grouping articles by categorization should be sufficient to accomplish the task of this article. Sjrct (talk) 14:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Zafar24, how do you determine what is and is not popular software? Is popularity not a nebulous criteria? Sjrct (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, type "List of popular..." into the search window and you'll see they're invariably redirects to a different list or main article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sjrct, The page is in UNDER CONSTRUCTION TAG, I will add references regarding POPULARITY of each softwares.Zafar24Talk 18:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duran Music Entertainment[edit]

Duran Music Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

DePRODed by COI creator without addressing the issues. Concern was: Cursory search shows no evidence of coverage in secondary sources, fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pirgachha Hafizia Madrasa[edit]

Pirgachha Hafizia Madrasa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable primary school (grades 1-5). First I tried redirecting per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, with an explanation to the original author, but they restored the content without discussion. Worldbruce (talk) 13:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 13:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 13:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) nyuszika7h (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic television[edit]

Catholic television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of these are actually called "Catholic television", except perhaps Catholic Television Nigeria, but that doesn't need a disambiguation page. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator – Oops, I didn't realize at first that CatholicTV might be called this. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joelle Fletcher[edit]

Joelle Fletcher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP1E This is a person who has attracted attention for a single ephemeral television event, and is unlikely to become anything other than low-profile. KDS4444 (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 When We Were Kings. MBisanz talk 01:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We were kings[edit]

We were kings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The phrase "We were kings" is not used in Black Egyptian hypothesis, a quick Google search brings up sources related to When We Were Kings. Adding "black egyptian" does not bring up sensible results either. Redirect to When We Were Kings. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Dave & Chris Show![edit]

The Dave & Chris Show! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article on this obscure program has multiple issues that have not been addressed since they were first raised seven years ago. Research does not find anything to support the subject's notability. And Adoil Descended (talk) 21:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  19:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Justifide[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Justifide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a non-notable band with this article & another about them reuniting, but Wikipedia isn't the news per WP:NOTNEWS. Overall, fails WP:BAND. JudeccaXIII (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My above comment is word-for-word what I said one month ago. KaisaL (talk) 03:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like you're about to start a crusade, good luck to you then. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 12:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not substantially contested. Can be userfied on request and possibly recreated following LaMona's advice.  Sandstein  20:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William Ransom (Bill) Campbell[edit]

William Ransom (Bill) Campbell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable architect lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my name is George Smart, executive director of the architecture nonprofit North Carolina Modernist Houses. We've researched biographies of 200 North Carolina architects, like Bill Campbell, involved in the mid-century Modernist movement. We'd like to start posting their histories to Wikipedia. All have passed away, so we don't run afoul of policies regarding living persons. Just like basketball and barbeque, North Carolina has a huge tradition of innovative residential architecture. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.17.168.100 (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

George, may I suggest that you take any articles you would like to create through the wp:Articles for creation process. There you would have learned that you cannot have an article without references, and you would have had a chance to fix that without risking deletion. Userfy. Also note that User:NC Modernist Houses may be a violation of wp:Username policy as usernames cannot represent a group - they must be individual. LaMona (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  19:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bo Rocha[edit]

Bo Rocha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NMUSIC. All of the coverage is trivial - a paragraph at best. She clearly fails the other 11 criteria. MSJapan (talk) 03:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be arguing that the sources cited are not WP:INDEPENDENT and that there's been a WP:COI in the development of this article. Do you have any evidence to back these assertions? ~Kvng (talk) 15:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Considering you're trying to distinguish "brief" from "trivial" for purposes of determining notability, I don't think you're the best person to tell others not to overthink. I'd also point out that you deprodded this in the first place, so it's more about "make me right" than "follow the guidelines" - there are at least three other people who disagree with you. MSJapan (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I beleive there's an important difference between brief and trivial. Publication of a brief piece about the subject is potential evidence of notability. A trivial mention in a piece about another subject is not evidence of notability per WP:SIGCOV. This discussion is about consensus, not !vote counting. Your position here, which seems to be more about me personally and WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE than deletion policy, does not help build consensus. ~Kvng (talk) 15:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, the problem is that you don't understand the notability policy in the subject area, and repointing it as a "personal problem" isn't going to address that deficiency. An actually notable artist doesn't need to rely solely on subjective judgment of "brief" vs "trivial" in relation to coverage; there are 12 criteria for a reason, and failing 11 of them is a pretty strong indication of a lack of notability. The reason being, if an artist objectively charts or wins an award, or releases several albums on a major label, or get s a song in a film, they get more coverage as a result of that exposure. So going the other way around and saying that an artist is notable solely for getting (semantics aside) "minimal coverage", despite not having major releases, winning awards, getting on the charts, or anything else besides some hype is really a pretty weak argument. MSJapan (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Meeting any of the 12 points in WP:NMUSIC establishes notability. Achieving this by meeting WP:GNG (point #1) makes a strong argument, in my opinion. ~Kvng (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if the brief mentions met GNG, which they do not. MSJapan (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You've called coverage "trivial". The only policy that I can think of that would exclude "trivial" coverage is the "trivial mention" discussed in WP:SIGCOV. I do not beleive that applies here as the sources are about the subject, not a mention-in-passing of the subject while covering something else. It's fine if we disagree about this but I don't really understand your position and would like to know what policies you are using to support it. ~Kvng (talk) 21:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rolia Whitinger[edit]

Rolia Whitinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Article_that_needs_attention. Fails GNG and WP:SOLDIER. Article heavily edited by the subject's son, pursuing a very clear agenda to expose the University of Texas for organ harvesting practises, or something like that (feel free to read the 4700 words and explain it to me!). FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 11:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Anotherclown (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Biography-related deletion discussions. Anotherclown (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 sense of the discussion that the subject was not notable independent of ONEEVENT. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Sign[edit]

Christopher Sign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD was removed by article creator, who claimed Sign was awarded an Emmy and Murrow. However, neither award was for Sign or in his name. A google search reveals nothing. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Scholz[edit]

Philip Scholz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am the subject of the article Philip Scholz and I wish to see it removed. The information is out-of-date and no longer relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swimfan0412 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC) — Swimfan0412 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep as nothing else has been suggested so far, and the fact there's several works is enough (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manami Ui[edit]

Manami Ui (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NACTOR. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Substantially unopposed.  Sandstein  19:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Odia calendar[edit]

Odia calendar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A Google Books search for this concept turns up 10 hits. Of these, 2 are dictionaries, 2 are not searchable for this term, and 5 are accidental hits of one kind or another. Only one book appears to contain this term, and that book, by Dr. Bigyan Badu, is self-published. It is possible that there really is such a calendar, but the paucity of sources available along with the single website given as a source in the article suggest that its notability is not supported by reliable, independent, verifiable sources. KDS4444 (talk) 03:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Ed (Edgar181) 10:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FSUU Morelos Gym[edit]

FSUU Morelos Gym (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's a sports hall in a minor university. Any content here, could be moved to the university's article. There is a major lack of notability. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Steinbeck[edit]

Nancy Steinbeck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

autobio-notability is not inherited Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America1000 16:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nard & B[edit]

Nard & B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BLP and WP:BIO. Little depth of coverage. No awards. This BLPs one source is primary. A search for reliable sources yielded one short secondary source here, and a one sentence mention here and here. They did not write or perform any of these songs listed in the article; they are the record producers. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti Talk 13:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti Talk 13:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 13:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Graham Barnfield.  Sandstein  19:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Marmite Sisters[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Marmite Sisters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Filtered google searches offer no significant coverage in any RS. One notable member is not sufficient to pass WP:NBAND#6. No other criteria of WP:NBAND apparently met. —swpbT 19:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —swpbT 13:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —swpbT 13:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Software Enterprises[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Magic Software Enterprises (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A previous version of this article was deleted following AfD five days ago. Note also this comment that the revised article takes account of the AfD discussion. The most substantial source is the 2008 Simon Holloway article on the firm and its product set: I don't know whether that was under consideration in the previous AfD. I also added reference to an earlier shorter piece from Israel Business Today. Routine announcements can also be found (such as the dividend notice also referenced in the article). My own view is neutral, and while reticent about weighing down the AfD log with yet another entry, procedurally I feel that the proximity in time since the previous AfD should trigger reconsideration to either confirm or override its decision. Notifying previous participants @Maproom, SwisterTwister, K.e.coffman, and Arthistorian1977:. AllyD (talk) 09:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 13:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are not trying very hard, then. A quick sample: [37],[38], [39] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firkin Flying Fox (talk • contribs) 05:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Lewandowska[edit]

Anna Lewandowska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article have unclear references in foreign language. The biography itself is not notable enough. The athlete is claimed to have won several awards but none of them are mentioned nor cited. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 08:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. References in Polish are as good as references in English. Absence of English references (or even of English coverage) can not be a reason for deletion.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zigma8[edit]

Zigma8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article created by paid editor and expanded by another paid editor. Prod removed by article creator (paid editor). Article is referenced to two press releases, a primary source, and a commercial site listing it as the best (of two) agencies in Teheran. It is a small (8 employees apparently) company which has apparently received one award and most importantly no significant attention in reliable, independent sources, as required by WP:CORP. Fram (talk) 08:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep Clearly passes WP:GNG and also meets Wikipedia notability standards. Most of content is covered by references.New baba (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Akame ga Kill! characters#Night Raid. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti Talk 19:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Akame (Akame ga kill!)[edit]

Akame (Akame ga kill!) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable fictional character lacking coverage in reliable sources. If it weren't for the improper capitalization I would have suggested a redirect to Akame ga Kill!, but no. Earlier PROD was removed by an IP address. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Akame ga Kill!, nothing additional in this article Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 08:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gita Jayakumar[edit]

Gita Jayakumar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A biography of an alternative health/fitness coach; the article was created by one new editor and another has twice removed maintenance tags concerning notability, advertising tone and unreliable sources. Searches, including the customised Indian newspaper search, are returning nothing about this person. That leaves the given references: there are primary sources such as articles the subject has written on a "Red Elephant Foundation" blog and New Age Wellness World, a short promotional piece at "META-Health University" and a Youtube clip showing the subject working at a Mrs India event. None of these strike me as reliable 3rd party sources. The most substantial appears to be the article about the subject on an "Incredible Women of India" blog, which is bylined. At most, these confirm the subject as someone going about her business, whose wares are promoted in the article; I see nothing to demonstrate biographical notability to merit inclusion in an encyclopaedia. AllyD (talk) 07:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 07:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of films considered the best (by year)[edit]

List of films considered the best (by year) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page almost qualifies for WP:G7 per Special:Diff/716004514, but thought I should bring this to AfD. The list, while cited, mostly cites box office numbers and critics site scores, while not clearly explaining why the movies of each year are "considered the best". The list remains largely incomplete, and has not been worked on by the creator/main contributor for half a year. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 23:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article and agree that it should be deleted Willowandglass (talk) 00:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Meets WP:NCYC #2, rode in a monument race (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti Talk 19:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Barton (cyclist)[edit]

Chris Barton (cyclist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is based on a single source. Beyond this Barton's competition does not look to involve any significant wins at top level competitions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Igor I. Barinov[edit]

Igor I. Barinov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While Barinov has apparently written multiple books, and several articles, I do not think hiscontributions currently add up enough to pass academic notability criteria 1, and he is no where near passing any other academic notability criteriad John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elisha Banai[edit]

Elisha Banai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article only has one source, so it clearly does not pass the GNG requirement of having multiple sources. Nothing in Banai's musical career indicates passing any notability requirement for musicians. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mandarin as a Heritage Language in Toronto[edit]

Mandarin as a Heritage Language in Toronto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Italian Heritage Language in Toronto, this is a poorly sourced WP:ESSAY with some POV undertones about a topic that doesn't warrant its own standalone article. There are just seven sources here, of which five are primary ones -- such as raw demographic stats, job listings on a jobs board and the self-published websites of community institutions -- which cannot assist notability at all, and the two citations that actually count as reliable sources are both about the Chinese Canadian community in general rather than having any content about anything specific to Toronto, so even the RSes here don't actually support the topic. I can find no other cases, besides the one I mentioned above that's already been deleted, where we have any "specific language in individual city" articles for any other combination of language and city. Bearcat (talk) 05:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a POV essay, sources are not about this topic specifically. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 09:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Subject has played in both the second and third tiers of German football and so clearly meets the subject-specific guideline. Closing as there is no reasonable chance of suitable delete arguments being presented Fenix down (talk) 09:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alper Bagceci[edit]

Alper Bagceci (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While back in about 2006 Bagceci played with a team that would later be part of a fully pro league, the team was not part of a fully pro league, so he has never played a game in a fully pro-league competition and so does not pass the notability guidleines for footballers. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 09:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 07:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Georgie Badiel[edit]

Georgie Badiel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Badiel won the Miss Afreica competition, one we do not even have an article on in Wikipedia. Beyond that she wrote a children's book with another person, that may have been published a few months ago. Just not at the level of notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) —UY Scuti Talk 19:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Austin[edit]

Rodney Austin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

AAustin does not meet the notability guidelines for Gridiron football. He never played in a professional game, and the coverage of him as a college player is not enough to rise to the level of notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clyde Aufner[edit]

Clyde Aufner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Aufner was a college football player which in and of itself is not enough to establish notability. He last played college football no less than 2 years ago, in all likelihood, and the only source is the player bio from his university. He totally fails the notability guidelines for gridiron football. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, passes WP:Prof#C3--Ymblanter (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Jane Howlett[edit]

Barbara Jane Howlett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ACADEMIC EvergreenFir (talk) 04:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nozomi Aso[edit]

Nozomi Aso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no indication that Aso comes anywhere near meeting the notability requirements for pornogrpahic actresses. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable, no sources or any indication of notability in the article. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 04:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Sam Sailor 04:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Ahmad Ali[edit]

Syed Ahmad Ali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are several brigadiers in the Indian Army and several hundred pro vice chancellors. No notable references and non notable person. InspireTheWorld (talk) 03:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assassination threats against Donald Trump[edit]

Assassination threats against Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are sources about specific instances of death threats, but the topic fails WP:GNG. Specific instances do not add up to a broader topic without WP:OR. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boss Man Bandz[edit]

Boss Man Bandz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD by page creator. Appears to fail WP:N and WP:MUSIC. Only third party source I could find is one small profile in Crunk Atlanta, which I don't think meets the notability criteria. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of phobias. (non-admin closure) — Sam Sailor 03:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iophobia[edit]

Iophobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The usual few hits on lists of supposed phobias, plus a bunch of hyphenated fragments. In other words, no RS. Mangoe (talk) 02:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Sam Sailor 03:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arkimedes Arguelyes[edit]

Arkimedes Arguelyes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Arguelyes is a road racing cyclist. There is only one source on the article, from the team he competes with no less. He is listed as having competed in several competitions, but not having won any, and never coming in overall higher than 5th place. TO me he does not look to be notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Toni-Marie Wiseman[edit]

Toni-Marie Wiseman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. WP:BLP of a single-station television journalist, whose strongest claim to passing WP:JOURNALIST is winning a "Best Local TV Personality" reader poll in an alt-weekly ten years ago. As is so often the case, this reads far more like a résumé than an encyclopedia article -- and outside of the blurb in the reader poll, the sourcing here is entirely primary with no evidence of reliable source coverage to get her over WP:GNG. As always, local television journalists are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- RS coverage about them, in media other than their own paycheck provider, that supports a JOURNALIST pass must be present for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 01:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry Clare[edit]

Kerry Clare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I still confirm my PROD which was removed with the basis that "one book at WorldCat is enough". SwisterTwister talk 01:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Subject has played in at least one fully professional league and so clearly meets the subject-specific guideline. Closing as there is no reasonable chance of suitable delete arguments being presented, I think there has been a bit of a misunderstanding of NFOOTY here and there is no need to keep all these AfDs open for purely bureaucratic reasons. Fenix down (talk) 09:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Artyom Antipov[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Artyom Antipov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The league he plays with is not the top professional league in his country. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Subject has played in at least one fully professional league and so clearly meets the subject-specific guideline. Closing as there is no reasonable chance of suitable delete arguments being presented, I think there has been a bit of a misunderstanding of NFOOTY here and there is no need to keep all these AfDs open for purely bureaucratic reasons. Fenix down (talk) 09:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Anishin[edit]

Sergei Anishin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Anishin does not play at the top level of competition in his country as required for notability for footballers John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Subject has played in at least one fully professional league and so clearly meets the subject-specific guideline. Closing as there is no reasonable chance of suitable delete arguments being presented, I think there has been a bit of a misunderstanding of NFOOTY here and there is no need to keep all these AfDs open for purely bureaucratic reasons. Fenix down (talk) 09:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Aleksandrovich Andreyev[edit]

Sergei Aleksandrovich Andreyev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The team he plays with is not part of the top league of national competition in their country as required by the footballer notability guidelines John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Subject has played in at least one fully professional league and so clearly meets the subject-specific guideline. Closing as there is no reasonable chance of suitable delete arguments being presented, I think there has been a bit of a misunderstanding of NFOOTY here and there is no need to keep all these AfDs open for purely bureaucratic reasons. Fenix down (talk) 09:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nícolas Andrade[edit]

Nícolas Andrade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Andrade plays for a 2nde tier Italian team. There is no evidence presented that he has ever played for a 1st tier fully pro team, which is the notability guideline for football players. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Sam Sailor 03:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

André Anderson[edit]

André Anderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Anderson does not seem to meet the notability guidelines for gridiron football players. While he was on a pro-teams active roster, there is no evidence he ever actually played in a game. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 was filed as the 4th nomination. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ching's Secret (3rd nomination) does not exist. (non-admin closure) — Sam Sailor 03:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ching's Secret[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ching's Secret (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I honestly wish this had been relisted as I missed listing my comments analyzing the listed sources, the 1 article listed is again simply PR, none of it actually substantial and I myself had speedied this as G11 with DGG and I still consider this PR, none of this is actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 21:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Random House–published book Supermarketwala: Secrets To Winning Consumer India is not "trivial coverage links consisting of either interviews, news about their clients and customers" or "other PR-speak". Nor are the other sources. Cunard (talk) 06:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Ching’s is also targeted at people in the age group of 18-25 (as against Maggi’s target group of children only) who prefer spicy flavours and look at noodles as a full meal rather than just a snack....It was also felt that Ching’s needs to leverage the Chinese connection and one way to do that was through packaging. So the colour coding and the graphics were essentially meant to symbolize this" is only something a PR agent would care to add. The articles are essentially still about the company talking about itself like this and that's not substance. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Material about the company's marketing practices does not invalidate the Business Standard article from establishing notability. It is valid, acceptable journalism to include discussion about a company's marketing practices in an article about the company.

And the several pages of coverage about Ching's Secret in the Random House–published book Supermarketwala: Secrets To Winning Consumer India book make it a very strong source.

Cunard (talk) 06:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Sam Sailor 03:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ProjectWise[edit]

ProjectWise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm still not seeing actually of actual substance, the listed sources are either PR, trivial mentions or simply unacceptable. SwisterTwister talk 16:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 16:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 16:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Sam Sailor 03:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Tito Traversa[edit]

Death of Tito Traversa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was originally nominated because it was a BIO article that wasn't BIO. The article was created during the initial furor and news coverage, but in hindsight, it doesn't appear to have had any lasting effects, and thus doesn't meet WP:EVENT. MSJapan (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Edwards (footballer)[edit]

Marcus Edwards (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per this fails WP:NFOOTY as he hasn't played in an WP:FPL. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More