The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Miss New Jersey USA. MBisanz ^talk 01:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia Pogorzelski[edit]

Sylvia Pogorzelski (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)

Pogorzelski's lone claim to fame is being a state beauty pageant winner. This is not enough on its own. The sources are all pageant publications, extremely local papers or one is a university newspaper from a university she was a student at. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Maybe we can consider beauty pageant winners to be cases of BLP-1E? Carrite (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree 100% with everything the nominator said, it's exactly what I was thinking as I read the article and looked at the sources. CrispyGlover (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Miss New Jersey USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:13, 15 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) 23:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scott La Rock[edit]

Scott La Rock (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:MUSBIO. Almost every reliable source about this person is an obituary, which isn't enough to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A Google Books search shows that La Rock is discussed in several books about rap music. Some of this coverage is in depth. Books are not obituaries. It is understandable that coverage of a notable person who died violently at a young age will emphasize their death. This is not incompatible with notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As well, La Rock was the DJ on Boogie Down Productions' LP Criminal Minded, which Rolling Stone originally listed as 444th on its "Greatest Albums of All Time." While the record was considered a standard-bearer for the creation of gangster rap, La Rock's violent death was also the reason for KRS-One moving from that kind of content toward "conscious" hip-hop, a style in which he was also a pioneer. La Rock's murder has been featured on Celebrity Crime Files^[1] and was the subject of a variety^[2][3][4] of reflection by hip-hop critics and fans 25 years after the fact.Querenciazine (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep clearly notable artist, there are many many sources online besides obituaries. Just because they aren't in the article doesn't mean they don't exist. Nominating editor should do a Google search before making a statement like that. No doubt, article can be improved by using more sources, but deletion? Not even close. CrispyGlover (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:43, 12 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 01:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Madi[edit]

Harold Madi (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)

Although I appreciate and see the user's contributions, there's still nothing to suggest this position sets any independent notability for his own actual article. SwisterTwister talk 22:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable city offical.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I understand why it seems non-notable. When I went to create the article I thought he was still the Director of Urban Design for the City of Toronto working under Jennifer Keesmaat. In this role he would warrant an article, and this role in general, in Toronto at this time, is notable. Upon starting my research and bringing in citations I realized he has just left the position, only last month actually. There is someone new acting in his place while the city looks for a replacement. Beyond a change in his public LinkedIn profile, a job posting on the city website, and the new employee being listed on the Toronto Urban Design website there has not been press about this departure. I still feel that his connection to Keesmaat and his participation in many important city planning initiatives is notable but without being in the role I thought he was, I guess it makes sense to delete the article for now. --RhyUrbanPlan (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• A search for Harold yields coverage more for Jennifer Keesmaat, the former colleague. She seems to be a notable Toronto city planner, per GNG. However, I'd say Madi just falls short, at this time. Maybe userfy until such time as Madi nets more reliable sources? Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Director of urban design" isn't a role that would confer an automatic inclusion freebie on a person just for existing. (Even being the head of city planning is no guarantee of inclusion — Jennifer Keesmaat gets over on how sourceable she is, but a lot of her predecessors don't have articles because they didn't do the job in anything even approaching the "high media visibility" way that she does.) It could potentially get him into Wikipedia if the sourcing here were a lot more dependent on reliable source coverage in media and a lot less on primary sources, but it's not a role that entitles him to an exemption from having to pass WP:GNG on the sourcing. I'm willing to reconsider this if somebody can locate much more media coverage about him than has been shown here, but nothing written or sourced here now is enough. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's little more than a job description. Not notable. Bermicourt (talk) 08:56, 14 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 01:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MecSoft Corporation[edit]

MecSoft Corporation (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)

Actually deleted in 2011 where I also suggest deleting, and since chances are it's not symmetrical to then, we're at AfD again; searches are not finding anything actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Concur with original deletion and current nomination. Non-notable software company, fails WP:CORP. No secondary coverage found, just some listings and press releases. MB 22:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Searches are only turning up press releases, or trivial mentions. Nothing which rises to the level required by either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I just couldn't find any proof of notability in reliable sources. There are voluminous pickups of the company's press releases in the trade press, so raw searching is a bit like searching for one good part in a pile of bad ones. The company's 'press' section on their website has nothing but press releases either. Found one instance where the company re-published the content of an interview that was done with their CEO, but that's not much use either. BoyRD (talk) 23:58, 14 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) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Palmer (real estate developer)[edit]

Geoffrey Palmer (real estate developer) (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 GNG is enough but my concerns still exist, the fact he's simply getting attention from those events such as donating to politics and also his controversies, I'm not seeing how there's actually enough for substance. SwisterTwister talk 22:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Note that I am the page creator, but between his long coverage in various local news sources as a major real estate developer, and the (admittedly not as long-lasting) coverage from national news sources about his role as a major political donor in the presidential election, I think that he meets the "significant coverage" prong of GNG, and I don't think he runs afoul of any other GNG issues. Orser67 (talk) 03:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The coverage he gets clearly passes GNG. He has been covered in detail by the New York Times. Even though he is in Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Times coverage is also enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The coverage of Palmer is not just that some people do not like the way he builds housing developments. The basic fact of the matter is he has been responsible for a lot of housing development in the Los Angeles area.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not actually helping for establishing his own convincing notability and substance. SwisterTwister talk 02:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - passes GNG, additional refs: The Guardian, LA Magazine, Reuters, Bloomberg, The Daily Beast, NYT (2000).-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is still not meeting by what I said with my nomination, attention is only for either his political donations or his clients, none of that is substance. SwisterTwister talk 02:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- "Donald Trump’s biggest donor, giving $2m to a pro-Trump group known as Rebuilding America Now, according to Federal Election Commission data. Palmer, estimated to be worth $3bn..." suggests notability to me. Sources presented at the AfD are substantial enough to keep the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – WP:BASIC pass, per a review of available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:29, 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 01:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dark chocolate! (animated film)[edit]

Dark chocolate! (animated film) (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 any notability for this short film that appears to have been shown once. Earlier versions were tagged for CSD and then PROD but PROD removed without explanation by author. A single reference is nowhere close to notability. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, something seems to exist. I see it's been greenlighted by Amazon Studios?. Anyway, it clearly fails GNG and NFILM -- really nothing to be found that helps with notability. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is simply WP:TOOSOON for an entry. The film exists and can be seen, but existing does not give notability on Wikipedia. From what I can see, the series was just submitted to Amazon Studios for consideration, but it doesn't look like it was actually greenlit for a series since there's nothing on the development slate. As far as the award nomination goes, the film festival looks to be fairly minor by Wikipedia standards so even if it'd won it wouldn't have been considered a notable enough award to count towards notability on here. I wish the director well, but it's just a bit too early for this director's work to be on Wikipedia. Maybe at some point in the future this can change and he can mention in an interview that his earlier attempts to be on Wikipedia were met with deletion. (I really want someone to mention this so we can include it in an article!) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:54, 10 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 01:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allied Solutions India Pvt. Ltd.[edit]

Allied Solutions India Pvt. 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)

fails WP:GNG, marketing company in search for exposure. The Banner talk 21:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the bad taste shown in adding so many red links (even in Categories) :-). But seriously, this is nothing but a WP:PROMO and I cannot find anything substantial on this company. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: there appears to be some walled garden / COI editing going on. Please see Ramesh Parasuraman which I just proposed for deletion; it was created by the same editor. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This may be an article created by a fresh editor without much knowledge about Wikipedia that's why many red links. But the Company or Organisation seems to have partnership with many Multinational Companies and it has only its short introduction, so doesn't seems to be only for promotional purpose. Allied Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. would be allowed but the editor need to make necessary changes to the article. Top Infos (talk) 10:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The article Ramesh Parasuraman may be an supporting article for Allied Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. as that person is MD of the company. But Ramesh Parasuraman article doesn't seem to meet the guidelines and feels as Promotional Article. Top Infos (talk) 10:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: borderline A7 and G11--not notable, no claim to importance. Drmies (talk) 04:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Necessary improvements have to be made in this Article by the editor. Apsara2016 (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "partnerships" with notable companies means they are one of a notable company's many suppliers or sales agents. This is inherited notability of a particularly absurd variety.The sources are basically PR. Thee is no reason to think thearticle is improvable, for the firm is not notable. DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:46, 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 merge to Mammon (Dungeons & Dragons). (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caarcrinolaas (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

Caarcrinolaas (Dungeons & Dragons) (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 article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into the appropriate section of Mammon (Dungeons & Dragons). bd2412 T 21:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Mammon (Dungeons & Dragons)#Vassals per the above. Jclemens (talk) 02:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge per above. BOZ (talk) 03:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:06, 11 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 Olympics on Seven. Jujutacular (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Rio Today[edit]

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

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

Non-notable and nonsensical. Ethanlu121 (talk) 20:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep: The program is the primetime centrepiece (flagship show) of Olympic programming in Australia on the Seven Network, so it is notable, but without references it obviously can't remain. I would note too this user has a history of creating articles without sources (The Love Game (game show), Everyday Health (Australian TV series), The Music Shop (TV series) as examples) and despite talk page notices, templates, edit summary points, etc the user does not appear willing to engage or abide by Wikipedia policies. -- Whats new?^(talk) 01:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Going by the description this is basically a primetime repackaging of Games event highlights for Aussies that are currently working during Rio/Americas primetime. The title says this obviously won't be seen after August 22 there, and it's basically just Seven's coverage summarized for primetime viewers otherwise. Nate • (chatter) 02:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mrschimpf: In fairness, they do more than just highlights: interviews, commentary, behind-the-scenes, etc. -- Whats new?^(talk) 03:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It's not much different from what NBC and CBC does then; but looking at it further, I'm going to change my !vote and switch to a redirect to Olympics on Seven as a plausible redirect. Nate • (chatter) 04:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Redirect: A redirect to that article does make sense, I change my vote also. -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect To Olympics on Seven. As others have said, it's not notable on its own but it's a plausible search term. Smartyllama (talk) 17:43, 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 01:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Atta Community[edit]

Atta Community (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)

Advertising of an company still in its start-up phase. Fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 20:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a completely non-notable startup business venture. The article is an overt advertisement crammed with meaningless promotional jargon such as "Atta's goal is reinventing the way organizations motivate, engage and empower people by making them socialize, team up and progress and it helps organizations to solve business challenges with gamification, teamwork and personalization." Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- badly self-promotional article on a start-up company, and my searches turn up nothing substantial; practically nothing at all. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:49, 12 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 only people arguing to keep (and there are plenty of those) are the article's creator, a bunch of WP:SPAs, and somebody with obvious COI (who, at least deserves credit for disclosing this). -- RoySmith (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Claro[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Natalie Claro (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)

Still nothing actually convincing as not all of these sources are actually acceptable, I still my PROD. SwisterTwister talk 19:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: fairly blatant COI promo. Quis separabit? 20:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Aust331 (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep appears it may have significant coverage in reliable sources Metaphorical analysis (talk) 20:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just saw Quis separabit? and I do not personally know subject. I am a music enthusiast and not so much a writer. This is my first attempt at contributing. Metaphorical analysis (talk) 13:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello, in the interest of full disclosure I was hired to help someone with an interest in this article to navigate through this AFD, I am not voting one way or the other since that would be a Conflict of Interest. Instead I want to point out a few things below.  MPJ-DK  13:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to call everyone's attention to the "Tampa Bay Times" article that's one of the sources listed. This article alone constitutes "Significant Coverage" as the article is exclusively about her. It is a newspaper with an editorial process in place and as far as I know Natalie Claro is in no way associated with the Tampa Bay Times. Why is this important? because this source alone qualifies as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." - And that last bit is a direct quote from The General Notabiliy Guideline. Which is the general guideline, even if individual projects impose other guidelines the GNG is the primary guideline.
• The "Jamsphere" article - Published by a Music Magazine (independent, reliable source) and it is focused on her, not just an aside mention, but an article all about her.

• So I believe by those two sources alone it establishes that the GNG is met, there is significant coverage, by independent reliable sources that are totally independent of Natalie Claro. I am pinging everyone who voted "Delete" with the reason that the article does not establish notability just to be sure they're aware of the GNG criteria and the article meeting them. @Aust331:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A heretofore regional, non notable subject, possibly a case of WP: TOO SOON. Written by a WP:SPA contributor, it reads as if it’s purpose it to further the career of the subject rather than being based on objective reportage. Note to User:Metaphorical analysis. The key wording you are overlooking in the criteria for WP:NMUSIC is: "May be notable if..." This means that to simply meet the criteria is a start, but not an automatic qualifier. The sources you are citing above are not indicative of significant coverage. The Tampa Bay Online (a.k.a. TBO) article does not carry the same weight as the Tampa Bay Times proper. Rather, it is an online only service owned by the Times that promotes stories of local interest. The interview with the subject (which consist of her talking about her pursuit of a music career) is the equivalent on a notability scale with that of a quarterback for the local high school who talks about his amazing yardage stats and how he hopes to turn pro someday. When assessing such a reference, its helpful to be aware of WP:EDPN. The other independent reference, JamSphere, is of dubious merit. All other references, as noted, are from user generated sites. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• User:ShelbyMarion You are partially right about the TBO, however the content was also printed in the Tampa Bay Times Newspaper. Yes, they utilize there Tampa Bay Online source for all their articles. I understand that those of you who edit and determine whether a page should be deleted cannot be everywhere, but there are many similar pages not nominated for deletion, however is given the time for corrections and updating, and support from other editors. In reference to WP:SPA contributor, I think all editors start somewhere and usually with topics they enjoy. I am here to contribute just like the more experienced editors Metaphorical analysis (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Purplechocolatebunny Hi there, I was also asked to help someone with this article, so I must refrain from voting as well. Excuse me if I'm not using Talk correctly, I'm still a bit unfamiliar with it. It appears to me that some of these sources are good, though it could use more; but the writing of the article seems rather subjective. The subject seems fairly relevant to me as this is a person of notability within the music scene of a major metropolitan area. Additionally, other independent sources citing her notability do exist. If the article is rewritten & more sources added, will that make a difference? User:Purplechocolatebunny 5:33 UTC 13 August2016 —Preceding undated comment added 05:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not "more" but "better" sources are needed. If you can provide them it would help this article. Independent for independencies sake is not enough. Avoid citing music websites/blogs whose primary purpose is promotional, even if they are independent of the subject's (or subject's management's) involvement. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry but the guideline says "significant coverage", which they are, it says " iindependent" which they are, it says "reliable sources" which a newspaper and a magazine with an editorial process are. Notice it does not exclude "regional sources". So " better" in wheat sense? And a magazine about music should be avoided? Is Sports Illustrated to be avoided for athletes?  MPJ-DK  12:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Again, reread WP:MUSIC and note the emphasis on the words: “may be notable…” To think: “Hey, a newspaper and a magazine have an article about a person. They qualify for a wikipedia article” is a flawed viewpoint. Please consider WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. There is a difference in significance between an article of reportorial nature that appears in a major metro area, picked up by a wire service and carried elsewhere versus a personal interest profile (one that contains her promotional booking information, no less) that runs in the “Northwest News” section of the paper (yes, I do research these kinds of things.) Or consider Rolling Stone verse a source like Rock at Night, a website where the bottom of the main page openly solicits content with the sentence: “In a band? Have news? Want to submit an article or photo?” One is a credible source with independent editorial oversight. The other is questionable in that it openly solicits content from those who are looking to use their vehicle as promotion. This is the kind of thing that makes it a bad source. And there are many music websites just like it. Their merits need to be weighed individually. Likewise, any kind of social media numbers (page hits, file downloads, video views, etc.) can never be used as an indicator of notably, primarily because it is easy to acquire/purchase “hits” for those wishing to promote their own notability. That’s not a accusation in this case, rather a statement of why wikipedia discounts them. So, yeah, I take all this into account before I vote delete. My position, contrary to yours, is that the subject has not displayed significant coverage that would convey notability. Look, I have no skin in the game regarding Ms. Claro’s aspirations. I’m assuming she has talent and I wish her luck. But lets call it as it is: a performer in the business for only a short time, largely self-produced and financed (per her own statements on social media) and who, with a single exception (performing at a weekend festival in New Jersey) has yet to significantly break out beyond her native region. I agree that being regional in nature is not an automatic disqualifier. But her performance schedule past and present, per her website and social media, are at venues that are unlikely to add weight to an argument that she is a major figure in the Florida music scene. But, as I stated in my original post, she may get there someday. Just not yet per evidence provided. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• GNC is not subservient to specialized criteria, thery supplement the GNC as a guideline if the GNC status is borderline. GNC is met, nothing can restrict that.  MPJ-DK  15:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Again, you are overlooking the phrase "may be notable..." which is up front in the first sentence as a declarative for WP:MUSIC. We are in agreement with the criteria for GNC. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Metaphorical analysis I have to agree with MPJ-DK In fact WP:MUSIC clearly states that this article meets the Wikipedia's criteria. This is what it states: Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria: Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself. Notability on this article is not a flawed view point. After reading some editors bios it has come to my conclusion that some editors have their own opinions and criteria. It doesn't say in in WP:MUSIC that you have to have global, national or regional notoriety. It gives specific requirements and they are met here. After the requirements are met, it seems that it is opinion of others whether to delete or keep. I am learning about wikipedia, and I am learning that it is also organized by opinion. As I stated before there are 100's of articles/pages that have been unfinished, unedited with no citations on Wikipedia, yet those pages are still standing. So if I had created this page, and limited the information perhaps it wouldn't be on AFD today. I am no way taking this personally, but it sounds to me that some others here are doing just that, basing their vote on their personal opinion. Being that "Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, written collaboratively by the people who use it. It is a special type of website designed to make collaboration easy, called a wiki. Many people are constantly improving Wikipedia, making thousands of changes per hour." You are determining a persons nobility on their income status meaning a musician should only be provided a wikipedia page if they are signed by a major record label, and that they should have a Grammy. Some people have achieved a milestone, and all milestones can have credibility. The comment about WP: TOO SOON is clearly just opinion. Wikipedia states "if an actor cannot meet at least one of them, it is pretty much TOO SOON for an article to be considered" HOWEVER, again Natalie Claro does meet one of them. Some of you are discrediting newspapers because articles are in a certain sections of a paper. The article is completely defined about Natalie Claro, and just because the writer disclosed means of contact doesn't make the article any less than the next. A newspaper that is from a major city, and delivered on doorsteps is just as powerful as any other newspaper. You are discrediting everywhere because of your personal stance and not facts. Metaphorical analysis (talk) 19:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have completely read through this discussion. Everyone has good points, however Wikipedia has criteria and we need to stick to this. It appears from reading both sides, that this page should not be deleted. FairlySavvy (talk) 00:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep After going through all details I must say that this article has less third party independent media. Only MTVs link seemed lil good but they had brief mention. The TBO link was fine and detailed for notability. More such links are required to establish the notability. Other links are mostly of social media such as facebook and tumbler which should not be used. The subject might be notable for other links not mentioned. So an in-depth online research should be made before reaching to any conclusion.Natalia.chase (talk) 05:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Natalie Claro have enough sources which proves the independent notability of her as per encyclopedia Guidelines.As per the other content which require significant coverage there has to be added secondary sources to prove the notability.yes she meets the criteria of the musician but article bust be improved as per references. "Tampa Bay Times" and "Jamsphere" these two article clearly shows. Imvaio123 (talk) 08:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In reference to Jamsphere. The magazine is print and online. From what I can see has been global since 2012. They have articles about indie artists to the grammy winners. Not sure why some are lead to believe that its "of dubious merit". Most sources receive press releases daily, and to discount an international magazine doesn't make sense to me. So, i think we have WP:CONTEXTMATTERS covered. Metaphorical analysis (talk) 11:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Hopefully we can get more neutral voters to take part in this discussion beyond User:Metaphorical analysis (who’s first article is the article in question, account created on July 28th, 2016), User:FairlySavvy (account created on August 12th , 2016), and MPJ-DK and Purplechocolatebunny (who have been asked or paid to contribute to the debate). Aust331 (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, I am new to this but so were others at some point. Everyone has their first edit, their first article or first discussion. I don't see why my words or vote should be discredited. I'm here to help just like everyone else. FairlySavvy (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The rationale behind the acceptance of the article was that the subject was found notable for "Tampa Bay Times" and "Jamsphere". As a matter of fact it has adequate third party and worthy references to meet The General Notabiliy Guideline. Her interview by Raven on "Rock at Night" shows her significant coverage in reliable sources. However the subject does not fall under Too Soon because it is considered only if the sources do not exist. Therefore I feel that the subject should not be denied space.Isabellabrice (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In early age she makes career and launch successful album like "Stumble" and "Baby Bug", she won prize as best local singer & songwriter. so this page should not be deleted.Dainy 123 (talk) 11:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Userfy per WP:TOOSOON. It is early in her career and so far she has not achieved the notability required by WP:BIO or the track record required by WP:NMUSIC. The references do not meet our criteria as Reliable Sources, with the exception of the one item in the Tampa Bay Times; we need multiple reliable sources and we need a little broader coverage than just her hometown paper. It's possible that in a year or two she may meet the criteria, but she doesn't now. I'm sure the closing administrator will take note of the huge flood of "keep" !voters here who, while not strictly special purpose accounts, still seem suspiciously attracted to this AfD. --MelanieN (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:Metaphorical analysis I'm just curious why "suspicious" and opinions are how we decide a Wikipedia page. We need to weed out opinions, votes and just use the facts. It seems to me that some people have made this argument about winning the discussion rather than addressing the guidelines, and if the article in question meets the threshold or not. Wikipedia has guidelines and keeping an article out that is deserving is just as bad as allowing one that is not. The guidelines are not meant for interpretation by editors rather should be followed specifically. Saying that criteria is not a Reliable Source when Jamsphere has been published globally since 2012 is just an opinion. Saying that the subject does not have a long enough track record, or not notable because sources are not widespread, is also opinion. We should be focused on WP:MUSIC which is very specific versus WP:BIO Metaphorical analysis (talk) 14:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (a weak one) Pageviews often correlate with notability and she's getting about 60+ a day which means I'll keep checking since it might be her fan club. There's some in-depth coverage here (although not a news source I am aware of) and some coverage here and a press release here and a search of Florida media found mostly press releases like this press release. Sometimes I look at what I call image consistency -- to see if it's one person or many -- suggests one person with quite a few images -- so there is promotional work going on. One video had 28,000 views which looks like her most popular one; other videos didn't really register much, so my sense is she's got a good voice and a circle of friends and well-wishers working to promote her, perhaps who help her design her covers but haven't yet figured out that she needs more reviews on Amazon? She has a good singing voice and she's pretty and I'd like to find a way to keep her in Wikipedia but I don't think the sources are there yet, but when they are, post a note on my talk page and I'll refloat the article so it doesn't get deleted, maybe in a year's time; right now I think it's too soon--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with context to the above user if she has a good fan follower there should not be any issue regarding notability i believe that subject is notable See references #1,3,5,13, they itslef clears the evidence, I must say referencing should be done well as contents.Weather the guidelines itself not clear between the admins. When we look for the resources, none of the resources of subject are irrelevant.And it is well said it is not the question weather to keep or delete and winning debate, it is to help wikipedia.Wikihow1 (talk) 01:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right. This should be about helping wikipedia. However, see my comment below. The evidence suggests this discussion is more about helping people who wish to promote Natalie Claro.
• Note to admin Evidence of WP:SOCKPUPPETRY, WP:MEATPUPPETRY and/or WP:VOTESTACK, or some variation thereof. Natalie Claro posted on facebook that this page was going to be deleted “unless someone convinces them otherwise.” A followup post by a 2nd party reads: “I created an editor page on wikipedia to save your page, but we might need more people to go there to create profiles and vote keep.” See: https://www.facebook.com/natalieclaromusic/posts/51583970528221 As noted by others, there are several new editors who have created accounts after this article’s nom, and their first action was to log into this discussion. It’s also worth noting there are older editors arguing keep who have never before participated in ADF discussions. Apparently, out of the blue, they have decided to come here and make their single ADF input to keep this article. Two of them, in fact, have not participated in wiki edits of any kind for over a year. What are the odds they would suddenly show an interest in saving this article while otherwise showing no interest in the ADF process? Considering there is evidence of help—paid or otherwise—being solicited (fairly disclosed by users MPJ-DK and Purplechocolatebunny) one has to question if any of these “keeps” are being entered in good faith. Every single one seems to have been compromised by an overzealous misuse of WP:CANVAS. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to admin I hardly think a 16 year old girl has these intentions other than sharing with her fans what's going on is her life. I don't see vote stacking occurring because as it appears it looks like there are the same amount of votes happening. And regardless, it's my understanding that you the admin will read the discussion and the arguments/facts presented and the VOTES of keep or delete have no bearing on your decision. If editors cruise in and out of Wikipedia, I believe that is just their choice. I'm new to Wikipedia by means of creating a user name, and I have been envolved with several AFD since. This nomination attracted me because i just see editors on the attack rather than truly justifying their comments. They all at some point in their discussion agree that this article meets the guidelines, but then contradicts themselves with TOO SOON. Come on people, let's be serious. We are all here together to participate in information for the public. There is value in Natalie Claro and you all see it. It's time to make a decision based on the facts and put a stop to ShelbyMarion overzealous opinions FairlySavvy (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • • • one more thing user:ShelbyMarion takes such interest in this article that I question his credibility. For someone so active in the Wikipedia community I find it odd and questionable that his only focus has been on the deletion of this article and the subject Natalie Claro since it was nominated, and no other articles or editing has he shown interest in. Perhaps he is the one who has been paid to Vote delete. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=ShelbyMarion&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2016&month=-1FairlySavvy (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for linking to my edit history so that the admins can see that my work here is consistent with my statement on my profile page. I generally check in once a week or so and do a quick perusal of ADF to offer my help to make wikipedia better. My greatest value to the wikipedia community is that my background in marketing, advertising, publishing, design and promotion gives me special insight how the creative arts community is marketed, and I root out non-notable creative types who attempt to abuse wiki for promotional purpose. I'm fairly adept at spotting press that is the result of promotional muscle because for about 6 years I was a partner in such a company. The small, independent music press is especially easy to get coverage. Trust me. We used to hype “the next big thing” for every artist who partnered with our client. It was pretty routine getting editors and writers onboard. Anyway, during my check in last week someone’s argument on the Natalie Claro page caught my attention, so I weighed in as necessary, largely supportive of the idea that this young artist is possibly on track to achieving wiki notability but was not there yet based on weak sources. The next time I checked in (today) I see it’s still going on. Unlike many editors who simply google a word and vote keep or delete based on hits, I actually click on most links to see if there is indeed merit. When I saw there was such a vigorous defense to save this page, I double checked my work. That’s when I saw the incriminating stuff on Ms. Claro’s Facebook page. But now that the WP:SOCKPUPPETRY has been outed, I see the post has been removed. Not to worry: I have encountered this kind of thing before and learned to make a screen cap of the post to back up my argument should the closing admin ask to see it. As for me being paid to edit, I LOVE the suggestion.PLEASE DO!!! Anybody…I would love for someone to pay me for this! :) Anyway, that’s about it for my periodical check in. I’m off for the weekend. When I come back next week I’ll be curious to see if the discussion is still going on. ShelbyMarion (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, and a question that just occurred to me….and surprised it didn’t jump out at me until just now. Given the statement that this page is created and maintained independent of Mr. Claro’s involvement, how is it that she is aware of its nomination? And, more revealingly, how is it that within an hour of being outed for SOCKPUPPETRY, she knows to remove the incriminating post from her facebook page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShelbyMarion (talk • contribs) 19:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • 'Comment' wonderful for you to answer. I will continue to question your credibility due to your method of attack. Wikipedia is a public tool. You can't miss that it's been nominated for deletion since its in a big huge box at the top of the article. Second which subject wouldn't follow a discussion that is about them. Most people would know their is a Wikipedia article about them. And I'm sure they visit it often when they first learn. So how would she not see that it' could be deleted. How would a person not see the link to the discussion and follow it. And which 16 year old wouldn't possibly feel like they caused a problem with your method of attack. Of course they would delete something that they are told is WRONG. That indeed was your message to the subject. So carryon now, and go after some other artist pages. I read your bio and understand your story of frustration of the contstruction worker pursuing music, and how much you disliked him having a Wikipedia page. I guess we all have something that drives us to Wilipedia and yours happens to be hate. This is a public forum and we all have the right to participate. Calling people SOCKPUPPETS. Is rude and shouldn't be allowed by any editor. Those are guidelines that will be decided by an admin. What you are doing is just name calling. And if she sees this I encourage her to replace her Faceblook posting because she has the right to share her current affairs with her fans, and it's not a crime. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, written collaboratively by the people who use it. It is a special type of website designed to make collaboration easy, called a wiki. We are all here to do just that. I repeat there is absolutely no reason for you to be so rude. Every editor whether new or old or infrequent has a right to edit and discuss. Let the admin decide. FairlySavvy (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Metaphorical analysis So many comments here, and I think its getting a little rough. I strongly feel we need to keep this discussion on the article and refrain from attacking the subject. So let's get back on track here. I have made an edit to the article to include a citation from the Tampa Bay Times, although it is just a mention I do think it helps. I'm glad that others helped with edits to the article, because this is what helps new article contributors learn. The article now has a strong foundation to build on with solid citations and credibility. It is time for the admin to make a decision and everyone here to comment needs to stay focused on the article and guidelines. Thank you Metaphorical analysis (talk) 13:03, 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 Xanth. In my earlier relist statement, I was hoping to get clarity on the rest of the series. I didn't get that, so I'm just going to redirect the one title. No prejudice against bringing the other books to AfD immediately. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Luck of the Draw (Xanth novel)[edit]

Luck of the Draw (Xanth novel) (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 had originally redirected this to Xanth the series this book is a part of as this article has no sources and nothing to show it is notable. My redirect was reverted, it was redirected a second time and that was reverted. The edit summaries indicate that I should bring this here. There is nothing to indicate that this book is independently notable and I can not find any sources to support the article. Currently article is basically just a plot summary. A4032 (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect/merge all Xanth novels except ASfC to Xanth: I completely agree with A4032. The series is clearly notable, but this book is not. Of all the books in the series, the only articles that say anything beyond just that the book is in the Xanth series, and possibly a plot summary or character list, are:

• Cube_Route (mentions that it contains the shortest known published pangrammatic window, a stretch of naturally occurring text that contains all the letters in the alphabet),
• A Spell for Chameleon (seems uncontroversially notable: this article has proper refs, and the book has a movie adaptation)

None of the other articles has a single citation to an independent source, or makes any claim of independent notability. It would suffice to have a single-sentence plot summary per book in the main series article. --Slashme (talk) 07:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:03, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, unfortunate that a lot of article creators do not heed WP:BURDEN, that said, found this: Kirkus Reviews - "The novel stands alone quite well and doesn’t require readers to be experts in the Xanth mythos to understand the basic story. However, newcomers should be warned that Anthony’s work is not for everyone. .. Anthony’s prose, and especially his dialogue, can be clunky and artless at times."[1], Library Journal - "Anthony tells another rollicking story that simultaneously deals with the issues of physical aging, life choices, and second chances. VERDICT This is sure to please longtime fans and also serves as an introduction to readers who may be new to the beloved series."[2], Beloit library review - "Only a few pages in, readers can tell the author is as committed to transporting the reader into a new setting as he is to making the next pun."[3], also on the longlist of the David Gemmell Legend Awards and the Ravenheart Awards[4], so close to notable. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - per Slashme I think merging the bulk of the Xanth novels into a single, stronger article makes the most sense here. Artw (talk) 14:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• This is odd. The Amazon entry for the book says "PIERS ANTHONY is one of the world's most popular fantasy authors and a New York Times bestseller twenty-one times over." At least those books of his on the bestseller list should've gotten some coverage somewhere. Dream Focus 19:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't be uncommon with serial works. The first entry in the series and the series as a whole have much more coverage, hence the merge suggestions. Artw (talk) 00:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Xanth. Kirkus is a "pay to play" book review publication. The publisher pays hundreds of dollars and Kirkus cranks out a review. These reviews may be of some value to professional book buyers but do not establish notability. The third reference appeared on BookSpotCentral, which simply posts reviews provided by publishers. This is also not an independent source. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I am throwing a keep because this AfD should not cover ALL the Xanth novels. Several at least are notable on their own (there is one about a kid that ran away and visited the author in florida in the 1980s and was covered widely in the press). The individual titles aren't covered much because it is essentially a pulp series but the prolificness? of the author shouldn't be a detriment, and merging them into one article is going to be much larger than 32 kbytes.--Savonneux (talk) 05:11, 10 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 01:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Abel[edit]

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

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

Not notable, or at least not yet notable, an apparently promotional bio, , listing every essay she has every published,and a long quotation describing her philosophy. Written by ed. with COI, who seems to be adding similarly over-detailed bios of all her associates. I think some are notable, but even those are excessively detailed.) DGG ( talk ) 19:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable religious figure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as, because as excessively long as this may be, there's still nothing for any actual substance. SwisterTwister talk 07:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable. The Boston Globe references are just articles that she herself wrote. Yoninah (talk) 12:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article makes no claim of notability and the sources provided are nonsubstantive and do not provide the in-depth coverage about the subject required to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 13:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Despite serving as vice president of both an important Jewish organization and her synagogue, Ms. Abel just hasn't been the subject of significant media coverage. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems the same person who create this article is a new user who also created a series of other weak articles or articles for deletion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Esther_Levy_JOFA about other people involved with the same organization.--Jayrav (talk) 20:47, 14 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 01:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Warren “Greg” Triggs[edit]

Gregory Warren “Greg” Triggs (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:GNG, no indication of notability as most are related or social media The Banner talk 19:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:NACTOR. - SanAnMan (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails GNG. Lepricavark (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - very poorly sourced BLP that needs a total rewrite. In theory, this actor might be notable. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:28, 12 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 Procedural close. Article was speedily deleted. (non-admin closure) Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erand Hoxha (Actor)[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT - a list of minor roles. Sources are self-published or consist of passing mentions of films that source had a supporting role (as an "extra") in. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural note: I've speedy deleted the article under WP:G5 as it was created by a confirmed sock account. Note the previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erand Hoxha (actor). Both titles have now been salted. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:56, 9 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 Miss New Hampshire. Redirect is always prefferred over deletion so am closing as such (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Candace Glickman[edit]

Candace Glickman (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)

Glickman was Miss New Hampshire and Miss New Hampshire USA, neither of which are enough on their own to make her notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep We appear to have articles on multiple other Miss America and Miss USA contestants from the years Glickman participated in. Plus, per WP:ANYBIO she "received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times". Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The clear consensus is that Miss New Hampshire USA is not a "well known significant award of honor". The outcome of a whole lot of discussions has been to delete these articles. A lot fewer articles exist for 2005 winners than it appears at first, because some have been redirected.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect to Miss New Hampshire. My searches did not come up with anything much.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment At a previous discussion on a winner of a Miss USA state award in 2005 this was pointed out "See also WP:NTEMP which says "In particular, if reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual."

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Miss New Hampshire as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:14, 15 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 01:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobuo Abe[edit]

Nobuo Abe (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 significant coverage identified in reliable sources. To merge to Nakagin Capsule Tower as suggested would give WP:UNDUE weight, as there is no indication of the size of this individual's role: who knows how large the "senior management" was? Even to be useful as a redirect, there would need to be some evidence that this person is significant. —swpb^T 17:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect or merge and keep the bluelink. This person played a role in the Tower, so it may well be a search term. If a merge would place too much importance on what we can't source, then a redirect would preserve the article history and allow it to be spun out if someone wants to improve it later. Montanabw^(talk) 22:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 17:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 17:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)} [reply]

• Redirect to Nakagin Capsule Tower. I couldn't figure out how to do a merge without creating an WP:UNDUE issue. ~Kvng (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete And please do not redirect or merge. There is not one reliable secondary source which proves that the subject is even linked to the Nakagin Capsule Tower. This is a failure of WP:V (forget notability) and we do not redirect if we cannot even verify. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that this documentary verifies the connection. ~Kvng (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication that the subject played a role in the building of the tower. We have a source [5] indicating that he was interviewed for this documentary. That is not equal to playing a major role in building the tower. In fact, I found this trailer of the documentary with a reasonably detailed summary and it doesn't mention the subject at all. So I don't see why we should keep a redirect. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I tried to find sources in Japanese, but whoever wrote this article seems to have put his name in backwards. I fixed it, but nothing I could find appeared to have anything to do with this particular Nobuo Abe. There is no Japanese WP article on him, he's not getting hits on the Japanese Nakagin article, he's not mentioned in any English article on the tower or the firm, and I'm going to also point out that he was ~31 years old when this project started, and thus highly unlikely to be considered for senior management at that age in a Japanese firm. I think someone is embellishing here, and without sources, there's nothing asserting notability. Also, just as an FYI, the editor who created this was blocked for copyvio. MSJapan (talk) 05:23, 13 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 01:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Impact Investment Shujog[edit]

Impact Investment Shujog (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 with the basis of 2 but everyone here knows those two listed sources are entirely unacceptable as they are an interview and then a few mentions as part of a donation supporting. SwisterTwister talk 15:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and I don't see a claim of significance here either. In addition, it is very clear that the article is being used for promotion. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and is largely promotional. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- SPA/COI editing, along with its sister company Impact Investment Exchange Asia (IIX). I'm not seeing sources beyond PR. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:08, 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 01:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anarcho-Nihilism[edit]

Anarcho-Nihilism (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 struggling to find any meaningful content not already covered by Anarchism or Nihilist movement. Also contains no secondary sources (thus fails WP:GNG) -- cannot find many references to the subject on Google. Specto73 (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is possibly trolling. I don't see any scholarly accounts of the philosophy/movement, and while I could envisage an article on the topic if a few sources can be found, this is not it. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Nonnotabilism-neologismism. Made up term. Carrite (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not notable (and probably not existing). --T*U (talk) 06:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, appears to be 100% original research.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:47, 12 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 01:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March to Rome (disambiguation)[edit]

March to Rome (disambiguation) (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 links to this disambiguation page; first page redirects to third page. Second page is already linked in the third page's hatnote. Wiktionary entry does not exist. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use ((re|Jc86035)) to reply to me 14:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:2DABS. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unnecessary - neither entry has this title, which redirects to the historical event and does not need a dab page. PamD 11:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have cleaned up the dab page uncontroversially, so it's not the page the nominator was commenting on. PamD 11:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete No valid entries, two possible 'see also' entries only, with similar but not identical titles. Boleyn (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cannot see the point of having it. It's main usage would be to redirect users to March on Rome, but the search engine already anticipates that if one enters "march to Rome" and it redirects the searcher to "March on Rome". Irondome (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom BlueSalix (talk) 01:25, 13 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 speedily deleted under criterion G11 (with Balaji Sreenivasan deleted under G8). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aurigo Software[edit]

Aurigo 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)

This is a highly promotional article about what appears to be a company that does not meet notability requirements. The article was written by editors with a declared or suspected COI. Most of the references fall into several categories: 1) closely associated with the subject such as aurigo.com and LinkedIn profiles, press releases by the company, 2) dead links, and 3) links that contain no information about the company. A related article about the company's CEO, Balaji Sreenivasan, which has similar issues is currently listed for speedy deletion. Deli nk (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing admin. If this is deleted, please also delete Balaji Sreenivasan as G8, as I have redirected it here. Black Kite (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Appears to have coverage in reliable sources but the Wire sources need to be dialled down and it largely rewritten from scratch to rid of possible promotional writing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dr. Blofeld, for trimming the article significantly to remove promotional content. The article is now referenced to 3 dead links, and a regurgitation of an Aurigo press release - insufficient to establish notability, in my opinion. Deli nk (talk) 19:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as it is currently it should be deleted, but I think enough could be gleaned from some better sources to make it stick. I'll look more into it tomorrow but am always relunctant to work much on something where there is obvious paid editing work at play.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: would it be a good idea to update your vote? it's still listed as "keep". K.e.coffman (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- typical advertorial and replica of a corporate web site; "Customer and Success Stories" is especially telling. The sources are otherwise insufficient to meet GNG and not up to the level of CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:30, 7 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 09:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TeamAWESOME![edit]

TeamAWESOME! (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)

Local college band that never achieved anything like national status. A search for sources fails to turn up anything except for an unrelated game app. Fails WP:MUSIC Karst (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 2607:FB90:D8F:B1:1D32:C7C0:4208:FAEA (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm not seeing sufficient coverage to establish notability, and no other criterion of WP:NBAND appears to be met. --Michig (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom.Aust331 (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:GNG. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 18:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:GNG and WP:NBAND not met. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 19:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails GNG. Lepricavark (talk) 22:33, 9 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) -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Morten Frisch[edit]

Morten Frisch (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)

Frisch's work has attracted a measure of attention among those engaged in circumcision activism, but as a biographical subject he is not sufficiently notable per WP:PROF Alexbrn (talk) 12:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I think Alexbrn summed it up right. The article appears to fail WP:NACADEMIC. The person is notable within circumcision activism circles, and the name comes up in some news articles about that topic, but I wouldn't say they've made a large enough impact on the non-academic topic of circumcision or autism to have their own BLP yet (c.f., Mark Regnerus who made waves for his "gay parenting" study and the related marriage equality SCOTUS ruling). EvergreenFir (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The attention that Frisch gets places him in almost a fringe position, and so we would need much better sources to keep the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not only does Frisch's high h-index (over 50) allow him to meet WP:PROF#C1 easily, but it should also be noted that there were at least three secondary reliable sources in the article [6] [7] [8] before Alexbrn (the nominator) removed them. Everymorning (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • But WP:PROF cautions "Measures of citability such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied." So some better evidence of "significant influence" is necessary. I'm not seeing any. Alexbrn (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Add'l RS coverage can be found, among other places, at the following links: [9] [10]. Everymorning (talk) 23:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets wp:NACADEMICS - has two articles with over 700 cites, and many more with hundreds of cites. I added a short bibliography of his works to the article. LaMona (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which criteria of WP:NACADEMICS have been met, in your view? Having articles with lots of cites is just day-to-day academia. Alexbrn (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep coverage in reliable sources identified above mean that WP:BASIC is passed, any deleted rs should be quickly restored to avoid vandalism suspiscion Atlantic306 (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • But isn't that coverage of studies that Frisch has been involved with, and not of him as a biographical subject for which (so far as I can see) we have nothing? No well-sourced article on Frisch can be written, other than a COATRACK for the content of his studies. Alexbrn (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:PROF is totally independent of the GNG, and does not require that anything be written about the person. It is not a supplement, it is an independent guideline--as it says on the guideline , a persona may be notable by GNG or WP:PROF or both, and either one is sufficient. All we need is enough verifiable information to write an article. The facts of a career are verified by an official CV, which has is one the most consistently reliable sources available, though not strictly independent. The independent verification is the absolutely objective fact of the published work. (Similarly for other professionals, the interest in the person is their work, not their personality, unlike, say, performers; its the work we have to have sources for.) Alex, your argument is completely against deletion policy and a reject of a settled notability guideline.

The key question for the main criterion is whether their work is influential. The principal measure or that in the sciences is the degree to which their work is cited. That's what academic notability isallabout, and if it is there, nothing else matters. The only point that needs discussion in such a case is whether the publications show sufficient citations. This depends on the field, and iit is certainly true the h value, especially h value not taking account of the field is a poor measure of it. What does measure it is the distribution of citation. Looking at google Scholar [11], which is accurate enough, I see his highest cited paper has been cited 755 times . The 2nd highest is 717, then 589 321 300,, 282,,,, with 31papers having over 100 citations each. Even in his fields of epidemology & experimental medicine, this is an incredibly strong record. Having articles with this many cites -- most of them not dealing at all with circumcision but anal cancer, proves notability as a scientist. It doesn't matter what his non academic influence is. He may or may not be notable as a circumcision activist. But that is irrelevant. He's notable as a scientist. DGG ( talk ) 16:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about that invocation of "settled" as an argument. WP:NOR states "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it." Frisch seems to lack these. Granted his work may have influence in which case we might have an article on The work of Morten Frisch (even then, good sourcing may be hard). But, without sources that is what this article will become anyway - a coat rack at that. Is it right that a scientist inherits notability from the science they've done to the extent that such an inheritance alone is sufficient to grant them notability as a biographical subject? Alexbrn (talk) 16:36, 12 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 Concrete sleeper. MBisanz ^talk 01:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of manufacturers of concrete sleepers[edit]

List of manufacturers of concrete sleepers (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 this really exist? Wikipedia is not a business directory. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, does not meet WP:LISTN, no sources found that discuss this group, this article was split from the Concrete sleeper article in 2014, any notable sleeper manufacturers can be included back there. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge back into main article. If the list grows, it can be spun out again with minimal effort. Montanabw^(talk) 21:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Concrete sleeper. WP:NotADirectory probably applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:16, 9 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 01:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Magee[edit]

Mark Magee (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. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has played in the Icelandic first division. However, this league is confirmed as not fully pro (see WP:FPL), meaning this does not confer notability per WP:NFOOTBALL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as fails WP:NFOOTY as not played in a fully pro league as yet, when he does he will qualify. Atlantic306 (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:46, 10 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 01:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jungle (Dannic song)[edit]

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

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

Non-notable article. AnonymousMusician (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails to satisfy WP:GNG/WP:NSONG. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: fails WP:NSONG. Richard3120 (talk) 23:02, 10 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) 23:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Krop[edit]

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

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

Poorly sourced and advertorially slanted WP:BLP of a person notable only as a single-market television journalist. The sole source here is an article in her alma mater's alumni magazine, which is (a) deadlinked, (b) not widely distributed enough to singlehandedly carry WP:GNG as an article's only source, (c) not a fully independent source, and (d) being cited only to support that she's occasionally had bit parts in TV and film playing a fictionalized version of herself. Sourcing (and neutrality) repair might be possible here, so I'm willing to withdraw this if the article actually sees enough improvement to satisfy WP:JOURNALIST and/or WP:GNG, but nothing in this résumé-like article entitles her to an exemption from having to be sourced properly. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete local TV journalists are almost never notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep pending sources. Looks like the article hasn't been updates since about 2008, and it survived an AfD 10 years ago. THough my position is opposite of Bearcat's, I share his desire to see someone do some research here. Montanabw^(talk) 22:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's sourcing and inclusion standards have evolved significantly since 2008, and with very good reason are now much stricter than they used to be — and consensus can change. So what happened in an AFD eight years ago is in no way controlling on what has to happen now; an article has to meet much stricter quality standards to be kept in 2016 than it used to. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - After some digging, I think there is enough sources to keep the article. Here are some examples: [12] [13] [14]. It is also telling how she receives coverage in both Canadian and American news articles.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All three of those are sources that would be acceptable for some supplementary confirmation of facts after WP:GNG had already been met by stronger sources — The Georgia Straight is an alt-weekly, and both BC Living and BC Business are web magazines with no substantively non-local readership — but none of them are in the class of sourcing that can carry the passage of GNG by themselves if they're the best you can do. And you say she "receives coverage in...American news articles", but you haven't shown any evidence of that (I suspect that you merely misunderstood the geographic implications of the name "Georgia Straight" — it's named for the Strait of Georgia that separates Vancouver City from Vancouver Island, not for the US state.) Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sources in-depth here and here and in-depth here (and there are many others) -- which show that she easily meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. She also has had a number of cameos in films such as X-Men. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cameoing in films doesn't confer notability in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• True, except that celebrities, even minor celebrities, are often invited to do such walk-ons because they are audience-pleasers, Bernie Sanders did one once, and I once saw Barney Frank walk on as a Congressman in Fiorello! - very cool.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep sources brought during this debate do establish notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:21, 15 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 01:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Frangipane[edit]

Francis Frangipane (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)

Found this while wading through the underlinked backlog. Article seems to assert some notability (author of many books, founder of an online "school") but there are no third party references provided. All of the subject's books look to be vanity press stuff. No reviews of the books to be seen anywhere, no compelling results for the subject on Google News. No academic papers, no major awards. This doesn't pass WP:BIO and very few other articles link here. A Train^talk 11:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note on sources I ran a proquest news archive search, there are sufficient articles about this minor preacher/author him to source, write and demonstrate notability. sources I saw are book reviews and articles re: his activities in general circulation media. bios profiles may exist in ,ore specifically Christian, alumni, or denominational RS. someone would have to do a rewrite. if no one is willing to undertake that, then delete as WP:DEL4.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Frangipane is a notable Evangelical Christian preacher. Articles on notable people should not be deleted just because they are poorly written, they should be revised.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Johnpacklambert: I'll gladly reconsider if you've been successful in finding sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: as E.M.Gregory said, the problem isn't the quality of the article, it's the absence of sources. I'd happily help revise the article if some reliable sources for Frangipane's notabilty turn up. A Train^talk 18:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a notable pastor and author. GS (which is notoriously low for religion cites) has 58 citations for The Three Battlegrounds I know ghits don't mean that much, but when we get 100,000 for an unusual name in direct quotes, we really ought to keep. StAnselm (talk) 10:09, 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 speedy close. This is not a debate or an issue for the AFD process. In the words of the nominator, this was "not a discussion about the notability of the subject", but is an issue with BLP violations and a potential hoax. While of massive concern, if these problems are legitimate then a seven-day debate is not the correct course of action. AFD is not "Articles for possible TNT", as is the proposal.

Per the AFD guidelines: "If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources." I do not see that any debate has taken place, as the article has a clean talk page, so no attempt at discourse appears to have taken place. Even if it had, this would not be an issue for AFD unless an editor wishes to nominate Mey for deletion due to notability concerns. Any hoax should be brought to CSD if it has been present from creation. The fact that even the nominator feels that Mey is eligible means this AFD is malformed.

I'm afraid that I can't really suggest a course of action from here because I do not speak Indonesian and thus cannot make the improvements to the article myself. But, my advice to Lemongirl942 is to reduce the article to a minimum using the information you have found, reliably source it, and then any BLP issues in former revisions could be removed via oversight. An alternative would be to, as you suggest, delete and start again. If this has indeed been a hoax since the beginning, I would suggest that you nominate it for CSD. KaisaL (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mey Chan[edit]

Mey Chan (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 requesting a TNT deletion for this article. This was recently started and the version from the beginning contains a bunch of hoax claims. For reference, see the article on the Indonesia Wikipedia id:Mey Chan. The article creator seems to have added hoax claims to the personal life and also other facts. These seems to have been taken from multiple articles and put into this one. There is literally no good version to go back to and it would be a waste of time to put this back together. This is a new article with almost no substantial content apart from those by the creator, the edit history is not useful and I suggest accordingly TNTing it. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding on, I am specifically requesting a WP:TNT. This is a discussion to delete this article as it is. It is not a discussion about the notability of the subject. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking for a TNT specifically because this is a BLP and it started out as a hoax. Some of the claims are outrageous and it would be much better for this to be deleted. The article creator has now been blocked. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- Article is poorly sourced, may require cleanup, but subject is notable per google news search results on Indonesian language google. Article is comparatively new at English Wikipedia, placing maintenance tags would be better option than hastily deleting it. Hitro talk 11:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem is not sourcing or notability. The problem is the blatant hoax. I'm specifically asking for it to be TNTed it was started by a now blocked editor and even the basic data in the article is incorrect. There is not one good version of the article to go back to. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm specifically concerned because this is a BLP. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• If claims are cited then they become factually accurate, so basic problem is sourcing. I am not able to read Bahasa Indonesia, so per WP:BEFORE, I can not call it a hoax without analyzing online resources when there are numerous references available in reliable sources. Hitro talk 12:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you seriously advocating on keeping this massive BLP violation of an article? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Please, this is not the way to prove your point. This is a discussion, let people place their opinions, community will decide on the outcome and I will respect that. If you were sure that this article should have been deleted speedily, then why did you bring it here? Hitro talk 13:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete under WP:G3 to enable any interested editor to start again. This article is an awful mish-mash from various sources that appear to have been translated from Indonesian by an automated translation service. Starting again, totally from scratch, using information about the real Mey Chan (See https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mey_Chan) is the only sensible option. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You are saying article is poorly translated so delete it under WP:G3, what kind of logic is that. :) Hitro talk 12:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I assume you have had a quick look at both articles (this hoax version and the original one from the Indonesian Wiki) before you made the ad-hominem comment calling my logic into question? If so you would have seen that the date of birth, place of birth, number of children and career details in this english language version are all fabricated. A speedy deletion under WP:G3 is the best option. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Reading your comment, I reckon, you are completely sure that the information available on Indonesian language article is true. You compared two articles and declared one a blatant hoax, just because you may not read or write the other language. So, instead of deleting it, we should consider improving the article. Any Wikipedian with the knowledge of Indonesian language can rectify the errors and source the claims. We have several maintenance templates and WikiProjects that can call for help. If you can not improve the article then it does not mean nobody can. Have you read WP:BEFORE? Please read section C of the guidelines. This is a complex case, speedy deletion can not be the best option here to get rid of the article. If this article is to be deleted then it should be deleted by a deletion discussion. Hitro talk 16:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a BLP. The claims are frankly outrageous and are a BLP violation. Nothing in this article is factually correct - the infobox, the name, the personal life, the achievements - every single thing is incorrect. I want this to be deleted as fast as possible before it can be mirrored. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Lemongirl942, I encourage you to remove all unsourced claims from the BLP. If that results in a stub, so be it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment in perspective For editors from the West, I will give an example. This is like creating an article titled "Miley Cyrus", saying that her real name is Madonna Louise Ciccone, that she was born in 1965 to a devout Mormon father, she released a bunch of devotional songs dedicated to the Mormon Church, then joined a band and now she now has 2 children aged 15 and 19 who also have their own Wikipedia pages and another one was born in 2003. (If this is not a blatant hoax, then I don't know what is)--Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:25, 10 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) 23:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Domovina (newspaper)[edit]

Domovina (newspaper) (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 satisfy WP:GNG. An obscure, long defunct newspaper. PROD declined without explanation by article creator. Safiel (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as still nothing actually suggestive of its own notability and article. SwisterTwister talk 01:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep  I was able to find sourcing by looking in the article:

• "Novo doba". Biblioteca Nacional Digital de Chile. Retrieved July 20, 2016.
• Biblioteca Nacional de Chile. "Domovinawork=Catálogo de la Biblioteca Nacional de Chile". Retrieved July 30, 2016.
• Asociación Nacional de la Prensa. "La prensa de las colonias extranjeras". Retrieved September 22, 2012.
• Biblioteca Nacional de Chile. "Novo doba". Catálogo de la Biblioteca Nacional de Chile. Retrieved July 30, 2016.
• Martinić Beroš, Mateo (1978). La inmigración croata en Magallanes (Third ed.). p. 67. Retrieved July 26, 2016. ((cite book)): Unknown parameter |agency= ignored (help)

As per WP:BEFORE B6, a better article is available on the Spanish Wikipedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: as non-notable and defunct foreign-language paper in Chile. Quis separabit? 20:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Meets GNG, per Unscintillating above. I additionally state that we should have a really, really low bar for inclusion of articles about historic newspapers. We are a comprehensive encyclopedia after all, and this is our fare. Fight the notability fight over My Little Pony characters, businesspeople on the make, or semi-professional athletes... Carrite (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable, even without some "National Library" references it doesn't mean that it should have an article (in that case, we could create millions of article only based on the folders kept in a library archive). And we should avoid some statements like the previous one made by Carrite because it has nothing to do about this article or this theme; there are two different things, and if Carrite have some kind of aprehension about My Little Pony or what else, then this deletion request it's not the place to make such statements ;) --Sfs90 (talk) 06:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete' -- defunct newspaper with only nine years in existence. Sources do not suggest this could meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Per WP:5, the encyclopedia "combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers". This is the type of content that would be in some almanacs. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- I struck my delete vote, as this article is worthwhile to keep for historical purposes and sources presented appear to signify notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a reliably documented, defunct newspaper.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:16, 15 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 01:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Umar Khalid[edit]

Umar Khalid (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)

2016 JNU sedition controversy which started on 9th February 2016.

Google news search results before 9th February shows no headline news about this student. The "Umar Khalid" in the news before 9th February is a terrorist named "Umar Khalid" who is not this student.

This article is a perfect example of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS.

In previous AFD most editors who voted keep are active in Indian political articles.

The problem is that those who are active in Indian political articles, they will not vote according to WP:NPOV.

Those who talk about geo bias in Wikipedia, Tawana Glenda Brawley is still in the news since 1987, but we don't have any biography article on her. John Jaffar Janardan (talk) 09:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep What's the difference between Kim Davis (county clerk) and Umar Khalid? One is an American. One is an Indian. WP:GEOBIAS. Clearly ongoing coverage AusLondonder (talk) 10:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so interested in Kim Davis (county clerk)? Your user page has also mention of Kim Davis (county clerk). Copy Pasted the same comment from previous AFD. Then delete the policy of WP:BLP1E as it is a joke with votes like this. If coverage creates notability then create a biography about Gregory Villemin as he is getting coverage from 1984. 1.39.38.37 (talk) 03:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Kim Davis attracted the attention and support of the Pope, her actions lead to change in the law in Kentucky, and may have been a key factor in the outcome of the 2015 elections in Kentucky. Also to compare an elected county official to a student is a horrible analogy. This article here violates both one event and not news guidelines and so should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete His only claim to fame is for getting arrested in 2016 JNU sedition controversy. 1.39.36.74 (talk) 01:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete clear WP:BLP1E. LibStar (talk) 12:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. Now Kim Davis (county clerk) gained international media coverage the single sex marriage issue,arrest,court case ,the support of the Pope and debatable impact on the 2015 elections in Kentucky and Governor Matt Bevin changed the law relating to marriage certificates.It has a lasting impact hence was kept .While Umar Khalid's arrest is only claim to notability in the 2016 JNU sedition controversy and there is nothing beyond it.Now in cases of an event only those which passes WP:LASTING or have lasting impact are kept and hence Omar Khalid's arrest has no lasting impact and fails WP:LASTING.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:59, 9 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  19:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P. V. Ramesh[edit]

P. V. Ramesh (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 Civil Servant. Fails WP:BIO WP:POL Uncletomwood (talk) 06:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable civil servant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – well-sourced article on a senior civil servant in India. Difficult to see what the objection could be. Unanimous keep in first afd. 400 hits on the first search above, including a wide range of solid publications. If only the notability of LDS officials could be established so easily. Oculi (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Oculi. Meets WP:GNG AusLondonder (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Article's citations are mostly made up of dead links and passing mentions in non-notable media. The only usable references I could find included [15] and [16], which do not help the article meet necessary notability requirements. Aust331 (talk) 08:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Reference 1 & 3 404 error, 2 gateway timeout, 4 subject not referenced & not authoritative site, 5 host not found, 6 dead link, 7 subject not referenced, 8 & 9 document not found, 10 subject not referenced, just calendar list. Looks like the authors threw references against the wall and hoped something stuck, but it has not. No notability demonstrated.--Rpclod (talk) 08:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not a good article, certainly, but he does seem to have held some pretty senior posts. Enough for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. one of the many recent articles on mid-level executives in the IAS> Not notable--the equivlent positions are not consideedn toable in any country, and the refs are the usual mix of pr & notices. DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really don't think a principal secretary in a state government could possibly be considered "mid-level"! -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment He is indeed. Senior would be only the Chief Secretary and Additional Chief Secretary/ DG of Police (Head of Force) and DG/ Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax/ Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. Uncletomwood (talk) 11:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting administrator note - Oculi, AusLondonder, Necrothesp: Can you provide any sources that establish the notability you claim? — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOTABILITYISNOTCONJECTURED. An office in the civil service is not inherently notable unless it can be shown that the subject has done something to distinguish themselves. More importantly, the sources have to specifically be about the person. It would be easy to find google hits when the subject has a common name and often announces government decisions. But notability needs to be shown independently of these routine news. As far as I could see, I did not see anything to distinguish the subject from a run of the mill civil servant. The coverage has been more about stuff related to his office than actually about him. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NPOL and fails WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. He is just another IAS officer and nothing special about him. Thousands of bureaucrats in India have done what this man is doing. Claims are highly exaggerated and glorified. Article fails GNG and BLP. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, to be honest, I do not see any notability. Obviously any person who held mid-level government posts is well sourced since his transfer to different positions is documented, but other than that it looks to me like run-of-the-mill career.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:56, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vigliotti[edit]

Vigliotti (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 unsourced, and I find no evidence of "notability" for the family as such, or of any member of it except Ray Vigliotti who already has an article. : Noyster (talk), 08:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article has a list of a bunch of Vigliotti who passed through Ellis Island early in the 20th-century. It is unclear even if they were related to each other, or how any of these people are related to Ray Vigliotti, or why we should mention them unless we are going to create lists that include everyone who passed through Ellis Island.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Clearly a bit of NN family history, combined with some general stuff on the part of Italy that they may have come from. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:17, 14 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) 23:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voonik[edit]

Voonik (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)

Advertorial and unconvincing article for a 3-year-old or so company with none of the coverage sources ever not being about the following: news about funding, partnerships or financing, interviews, trivial coverage such as interviews and business profiles or PR or PR-like mentions; my own searches are essentially finding this as well, even after searching Indian news sources. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The company has been in existence for over 3 years with 8000+ news links, across important publications like The Times of India, Hindu Business Line, Indian Express, Hindustan Times, Economic Times, Financial Express etc. These are not PR or paid publications at all. The company is one of the popular e-commerce players in India. The tone of the content maybe re-written to be in-sync with Wikipedia guidelines, but the page be kept. Becktea (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – A company's age is not associated with notability. See also WP:NEWCOMPANY. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources, although a bit on the weaker side. Promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The e-commerce website has 10 million registered users with 8 million app downloads, making it an established and notable player in the market. Angreza (talk) 09:30, 13 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 01:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minisketch[edit]

Minisketch (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. Source searches are only providing passing mentions, such as this. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: obscure minimal techno label which was wound up in 2009 – founder Squillace is still very much active in the scene but has moved on to other things. Fails WP:CORP, all the artists fail WP:MUSICBIO, all the tracks fail WP:NSONGS, and as the label no longer exists, the official website doesn't either. Richard3120 (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable record label. Fails NMUSIC#3, no notable artists, no indication of significant length of operation, no indication label had any impact on any musical genre or musical culture of any significance. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 12:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:CORP FairlySavvy 00:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
• Delete -- no indication of notability. Searches do not turn up anything. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:00, 14 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 01:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Konnik[edit]

Konnik (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 subject does not meet WP:ARTIST or WP:BASIC. Finding no significant coverage in reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]