< 17 February	19 February >

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SNOW, given the lack of arguments made in favor of deletion; WP:BEFORE does not seem to have been consulted and would be a a useful reference in the future. — Earwig ^talk 23:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge Engine (Wikimedia Foundation)[edit]

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

Since this is an active Wikimedia project this would be a conflict of interest to edit this page. It should be redirected to https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Discovery as this is the project page. Much like we don't have an article on meta we should not have an article on this. Mrfrobinson (talk) 23:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as having an invalid deletion rationale. There is no prohibition here on writing about Wikimedia projects, as long as they are based on reliable sources that cover the subject in-depth and are published independently of Wikimedia, as this one is; the sources give it a pass of WP:GNG. The suggested cross-namespace redirect would be a bad idea. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Plenty of press coverage already, so easily passes WP:GNG. As David Eppstein states, no valid rationale for deletion has been given. Edwardx (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Looks like a well sourced article and POV differences are being worked out on the article's talk page. "Wikipedia cannot give greater prominence to an agenda than experts or reliable sources in the Real World have given it; the failure to understand this fundamental precept is at the root of most problems with advocacy on Wikipedia." -- WP:ADVOCACY 009o9 (talk) 00:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Not a valid reason for deletion. Pinguinn (🐧) 02:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Invalid nom, passes GNG. --Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 05:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Invalid reason for deletion, article clearly passes GNG. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Per above. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment; really, this is what we are keeping ? Navel-gaze much we do </yoda> ... —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Alright, yes, I see the criticism that it's navel-gazing, but that doesn't invalidate the independent coverage in reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the time being, although it may be appropriate in a years' time to consider merging this with another article, e.g. Wikimedia Foundation. (By then, either it will have been terminated & become a footnote in WMF history, or have become one of their major projects.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Call for snow close[edit]

Per WP:SNOW. This AfD does not have a snowball's chance in hell of resulting in a deletion. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:01, 19 February 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. J04n(talk page) 22:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nationals–Mets rivalry[edit]

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

There is not a "rivalry" between these two teams that meets the notability guidelines. This page only mentions as the basis of this "rivalry" that both teams contended for the NL East title in 2014 and 2015, and that Daniel Murphy signed with the Nationals during the past offseason, "making the next game between these teams much anticipated." This is insufficient. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not much of a rivalry, but the the subject has at least been covered by many news organizations, including the New York Times--Prisencolin (talk) 00:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide some of those sources? I'm not aware of them. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NY Times article, NJ Post, NY Post.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so the two articles I discussed below, and the third, the NY Times article, makes one mention of them being rivals, without any reasons backing it up. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, unless sources are provided to demonstrate a rivalry more significant than any 2 teams in the same division. Rlendog (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All I see is this one NY Post article from April 2015 (which only uses the word "rivalry" once, and it's in the headline that the author didn't write) and this one from NJ.com from August 2015, which claims a "budding rivalry". This isn't enough for notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I mean, if the word is in the title, isn't that what the article is about then?--Prisencolin (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Headlines are written by editorial staff, usually to be more "clickbait"y. The articles are about how the teams compete against each other, and don't really back up the assertion that they are "rivals". – Muboshgu (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any 2 teams that play in the same division can be described as a "rivalry," especially in a headline. The same goes for any 2 teams that play each other in a playoff series (or maybe 2). But we have required far more coverage specific to a particularly notable rivalry between 2 teams to warrant an article. Rlendog (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There isn't a rivalry between these two teams significant enough for a WP article....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This "rivalry" is nothing more than two teams competing in the same division. The article does nothing other than tell us that the rivalry exists -- no discussion of causes, no notable examples of the rivalry in action (and, no, signing up someone else's player doesn't count as "rivalry" material). NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently it does though, in the opinion of several writers.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NOTNEWS applies. There's a difference between writing a newspaper article and an encyclopedic article. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Every time any two teams meet someone wants to call it a "rivalry". There's nothing nothing to distinguish this from any other set of past and scheduled games between teams in the same sporting league. Reyk _YO! 13:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 25 February 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. J04n(talk page) 22:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asia-Pacific Governance Institute[edit]

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

promotional. May not exist Rathfelder (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – None of the sources even mention the subject. KSFT ^C 23:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. KSFT ^C is spot on as well! -- Hybris1984 (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:09, 21 February 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. J04n(talk page) 22:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disney's FastPlay[edit]

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

I am not sure what the notability criteria are for DVD features, but I am pretty sure this one doesn't qualify. KDS4444^Talk 21:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: notability requires coverage. There doesn't seem to be any reputable independent coverage -- only people complaining about the feature on blogs and forums. ubiquity (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - might be worth a passing mention on the Disney page, but hardly worth a full article. Blythwood (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable and there are other ways to skip these on various DVD and blu ray players. MarnetteD|Talk 04:03, 25 February 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. J04n(talk page) 22:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heath A. Carr[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a businessman, whose strongest claim of notability is that he founded a small, non-notable company that was later acquired by a larger multinational. This does not satisfy our inclusion standards for businesspeople in and of itself, and the sourcing doesn't assist in getting him over WP:GNG: his business career is referenced entirely to primary sources like his company's own web presence and its own press releases, and the only thing here that counts as any form of reliable source coverage is a news article which mentions his name a single time at the very end as the buyer of a house, while being primarily about the sellers. So that source doesn't count toward GNG either, because he isn't its subject. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if it can be written and sourced more substantively than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You label a $540 million sale of a private company to a public company as "small and non-notable". Others may disagree. The structural rehabilitation industry is consequential, as the water crisis in Flint Michigan and other cities in the US is going to be solved using these technologies, which prompted this entry, with more like it to come. This is a major emerging story, worthy of attention, with political ramifications coming in many states. Jsheridan33 (talk) 04:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quite aside from the fact that $540 million is actually fairly chump change as business takeovers go, that transaction is only notable for our purposes insofar as media coverage tells us it's notable. But you haven't shown any media coverage of it — and even if you can show such coverage, notability is not inherited. The present or former CEO of a company doesn't get an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia because CEO, if media coverage hasn't focused on his role as CEO. And the purported link to Flint, also unsourced to any media coverage. Reliable source coverage is the be-all and end-all of notability on Wikipedia, and nobody but nobody ever but ever gets an exemption from that for any reason. Bearcat (talk) 07:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not better satisfying the applicable notability, none of this suggests solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing any substantial sources about him. I tried the San Diego newspapers and the LA Times, since those are his local areas, but got zip, other than the house sale. The change of ownership of a company or buying a house are not notable acts. LaMona (talk) 01:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. I see plenty of sources regarding the company, but they only mention the person or quote him in a sentence or two at best. There's definitely enough to show notability of the company, but I'm not seeing enough to show notability of the person (WP:TOOSOON). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:38, 22 February 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. J04n(talk page) 22:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie handsome[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Working with notable people doesn't make one notable. Lack of significant third party coverage about the subject himself. Article was CSD'd but an editor returned it with more info the next day.Niteshift36 (talk) 21:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no serious coverage. ubiquity (talk) 21:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests better satisfying the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 25 February 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. J04n(talk page) 22:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Connecticut Huskies women's basketball players with 250 steals[edit]

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

List article that uses apparently arbitrary inclusion criteria. Fails WP:LISTN for lack of available sources for such a list. The content could be merged into an existing article. - Mr X 20:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SALAT, which explains: "Lists that are too specific are also a problem. The 'list of one-eyed horse thieves from Montana' will be of little interest to anyone (except the person making the list)." We're not quite in one-eyed horse thieves territory here, but this is so incredibly specific that it is of little value as a standalone list. I would support a merge to an appropriate article if editors can identify one, and we may also want to consider merging the various overly-specific lists of statistics for this team into a single article (see also List of Connecticut Huskies women's basketball players with 1000 points, List of Connecticut Huskies women's basketball players with 1000 rebounds, and List of Connecticut Huskies women's basketball players with 500 assists). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as arbitrary cutoff. If this does get deleted, then a new mass-AfD should be opened for List of Connecticut Huskies women's basketball players with 500 assists, List of Connecticut Huskies women's basketball players with 1000 rebounds, and List of Connecticut Huskies women's basketball players with 1000 points, as all of that information should be merged into the parent article, if not deleted entirely. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:03, 19 February 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. J04n(talk page) 22:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Retroist[edit]

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

I can't find any independent secondary sources at all that suggest this is a notable blog or podcast. Nada, nothing JMWt (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any coverage in reliable sources, either. Google search results are primarily forum posts and the occasional trivial mention, such as this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches found nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 02:58, 25 February 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. J04n(talk page) 22:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Shai[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Subject has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." ubiquity (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Jytdog (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as certainly questionable for the applicable notability, none of this is actually better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete All the reference in Hebrew talk about companies he established. No reference is talking about him independently of those companies. The sites referenced are serious economic newspapers, so base for notability is created. Question here, if those companies are notable enough to create a case for their founder. In this I have a doubt. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Likely paid editor at work. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Grimes[edit]

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

Unable to find sufficient coverage independent of the subject of this BLP to meet GNG nor do I believe his career accomplishments meet NACTOR. J04n(talk page) 19:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 19:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 19:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 19:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks the coverage to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above. ^My^name ^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 17:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Already deleted J04n(talk page) 19:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Clark[edit]

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

Is this notable enough? Qpalzmmzlapq | talk | contribs 18:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

errr no.. needs Speedy Delete as it is just random information about a non-notable individual. JMWt (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agreed with JMWt; unsure how this even got this far. Julietdeltalima (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it for speedy deletion per A7. Qpalzmmzlapq | talk | contribs 01:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Buffer space (software development)[edit]

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

In the software development context, this appears to be a little-used neologism. The article provides no references and I was unable to find online references using the term "buffer space" with this meaning. Pichpich (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the article should be deleted as misleading and completely unreferenced. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 17:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I haven't heard this terminology before. The article is unreferenced. A web search doesn't immediately turn up anything. Buffer space is a pretty overloaded term so we can't expect too much from a web search. I don't see any mention of buffer in Executable or Object file. I'm dubious. As far as redirect targets, doesn't look like Data buffer is a good choice. I think deleting may be the best way forward. ~Kvng (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches noticeably found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 08:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:49, 25 February 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. Personally would've !voted Keep myself had I known sooner but pointless now, Consensus is to Keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pontiac vehicles[edit]

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

Per WP:RAWDATA. Only a list with no context and no indication of notability. T v x1 17:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Pontiac vehicles. The list's context is very clear as covering Pontiac vehicles, and the article is a functional navigational aid as per WP:LISTPURP. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Nordic Dragon 10:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. It could possibly use an introduction, but is otherwise no different or less notable than any other existing list of cars by brand. --Vossanova ^o< 16:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems like a perfectly normal list of vehicles. Maybe it could use a bit of work such as an intro paragraph, but it's not appreciably different than, say, List of Chevrolet vehicles or List of Toyota vehicles. I don't see as an "Excessive listings of statistics" as implied by the nom's pointing to WP:RAWDATA. Egsan Bacon (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jaguda.com[edit]

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

The only attempts at notability are nominations for awards from website that actively ask you to submit your own website. Nominating yourself for an award isn't notability. The author is Arinze2k and the article claims the website was founded by "Arinze Obikili" so this is probably WP:COI and self-promotional. Emotionalllama (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability not established Shritwod (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nominated for some minor awards for blogging. May well be popular, but I would guess that the only available sources would be in Nigeria. Definitely nothing shows up with a standard US Google search. LaMona (talk) 01:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also because none of this seems enough for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 01:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sadly, no evidence of notabiliy. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Campion (boxing)[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer with sources found being fluff pieces by sources of questionable reliability Nohomersryan (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think the claim to notability is as a trainer or promoter but it was certainly is a promotional fluff piece (now improved). Not enough out there to support notability which is to be expected for someone who only got his license in 2014.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this suggests the applicable independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG with no significant coverage and there's no indication of notability.Mdtemp (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nomination is only suggesting a merge, which can be discussed on an article talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tenacity (textile strength)[edit]

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

Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor, whose rationale is below (from my talk page). On the merits, no opinion - though it does seem that a merge would be a good option, here. If not to Specific strength, then perhaps to some other target? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Tenacity (textile strength) into specific strength. The two are the same thing, also the Tenacity page is a stub. Also, what is quasi-dimensionless supposed to mean? Tenacity should be turned into a section in specific strength. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.213.249 (talk) 01:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per above. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:23, 18 February 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 deleted by Sergecross73. (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 21:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tigenball[edit]

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

The article appears to be a hoax: Beyond having no citations, a Google search for "tigenball," "tigen ball," and "tigen cup" didn't return a single relevant result except for the Wikipedia page. For an organized sport played by multiple teams in at least two countries, I would expect a mention somewhere, reliable or otherwise. — Rebbing talk 14:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TalePicker[edit]

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

No coverage in reliable sources. Google news shows only two hits, both articles unrelated to Talepicker which merely credit Talepicker for a photo. [1]. A normal Google search turns up little other than the website itself and its social media accounts. Article subject is not notable. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sign of notability. Mr RD 19:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources or references from third party. Getcharstar (talk) 09:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches clearly found nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 02:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ambrose Gnahore[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as player has not played in any WP:FPL (fully professional league) and I can not see the player passing WP:GNG either. The current sources are just routine local coverage for transfers from regional papers. Qed237 (talk) 12:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 12:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league, meaning the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:59, 18 February 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) 15:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:41, 18 February 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 Railfan#Railway photography. Sandstein 19:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Digital manipulation in railway photography[edit]

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

While this is a subject which is easy to find mentions of in reliable sources ('this is a picture of a train but it's been altered', 'someone was disqualified from a train photo competition for using photoshop') I can't see that it's a subject which has received significant and specific coverage. We don't even have a dedicated article for railway photography, so I don't see why we have an article on this aspect of it. Anything relevant can be discussed at the linked section. Sam Walton (talk) 11:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Don't miss the suggestions for a merge made by Jim.henderson (talk · contribs) on both the talk page of this article, and Railfan. Here and here. He suggests this content be merged into a new Railway photography article. Elzbenz (talk) 14:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move and merge Jim has now commented below. I agree with his recommendation. Elzbenz (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep As the nominator notes, " this is a subject which is easy to find mentions of in reliable sources". This is also (and still) a hot topic within the railway press, for the reasons discussed in the article. If there's a lack of a dedicated article at railway photography, then the fix for that is to write that, not to delete others. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Trivial mentions aren't enough to sustain an article; can you show some reliable sources that are dedicated to discussing this topic? I couldn't find anything that wouldn't also turn up if you searched for "digital manipulation in [other thing that exists] photography". Sam Walton (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect with a couple of (inline) references this could be a section in Photo manipulation. It's decently written content, but probably better suited for a photography related article.009o9 (talk) A subsection in Railway photography (per above) also looks like a good place to merge to. 009o9 (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While "mentions" are easy to find, there is no significant coverage of the topic. The history can be restored if someone is interested in creating a separate railway photography article. --Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 17:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move and merge. It's got enough solid refs for a section; just not for an article. So, move to Railway photography which for some time has been a redirect to the Railfan subsection about photography, and cut & paste that subsection into the new article's intro. Jim.henderson (talk) 04:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Railfan#Railway photography like suggested. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As a graphic design professional, I have never heard of a separate school just for railway photography manipulation, but after looking closely at the example photographs, my suggestion is to rename this article " REEEEEEEALLY BAD PHOTOSHOPPING" MiracleMat (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Railfan#Railway photography as suggested. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete, no evidence of meeting WP:GNG. GregorB (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jena K. Siva[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an actor and filmmaker, making no strong claim of notability under WP:CREATIVE and citing no reliable source coverage. The writing tone here has a heavy advertorial skew, blatant enough that I'd actually be pulling the speedy trigger on it if somebody hadn't already declined speedy on other grounds. As always, a person in the film industry does not automatically get a Wikipedia article just because they have an IMDb profile -- it takes reliable source coverage in media to get somebody over a Wikipedia inclusion bar. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 09:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for the same reasons by Bearcat, I have earlier marked this page for Speedy deletion which seems to be removed. Kavdiamanju (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I only see around 75 hits on Google, none of which look reliable. It's possible there are non-English sources, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 09:23, 25 February 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 arguments by the socks and special purpose accounts are not convincing. I guess there would have been even more of them, except that the discussion was semi-protected (I don't think I've ever seen that before). I could find no evidence that the article was ever salted, but I will salt it now; it has been created and deleted six times. MelanieN (talk) 00:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suzy Kassem[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was previously deleted and salted, and has been re-created by a user with no obvious history outside this subject, who has also written virtually all the content - other edits are mainly minor housekeeping. The sources are a press release, a children's book, a couple of quotes (not about the subject, just quoting her) and her own website. The article and its sourcing fail to establish the importance of the subject. This and the other linked articles (e.g. Rise Up and Salute the Sun), are basically a very small walled garden written by one apparent fan. Guy (Help!) 09:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AFD "blanked, as a courtesy"?E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the blanking is a bit odd. a note on User Bigger Digger's page (not an admin) says he blanked it because an IP had blanked it earlier, which seems rather thin. Then the banner somehow got changed from a brief message saying the article had been deleted but discussion hidden to one just saying the discussion had been hidden, with no mention of the result.Dialectric (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw an OTRS ticket way back. Regardless, courtesy blanking AfDs for living individuals is not really controversial. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True it's not unusual for living persons, but it is unusual to see at an AFD for "an American writer, film director,[1] philosopher, author, and poet" who self-promotes on social media.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just as Nom writes, sources on page are inadequate, and my searches on her name turn up nothing: [2] beyond a pair of blog posts.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Disagree with the AfD. A search online came across more than solely blog content. Activity spans across different types of sites and sources. Additional citations have been added from some more relevant mainstream sources. Interestingly, the author's writings are being quoted directly by other writers and public figures. Who is this person and why are they being cited across the web? The article seems to answer the question on the "who" and supports somewhat the "why" factor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BgY72 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC) — User:BgY72 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

BgY72 now blocked for socking. Meters (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet wp:AUTHOR. The book is held in all of 5 libraries in WorldCat. I don't find any reviews of it. Two of the references are about the publishing house, with only mentions of her. The film "Harmony Parker" is mis-directed to the wrong Wikipedia page. There is no page for the film, which was a short and doens't seem to have gotten distribution. So I'd say that she also doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE. LaMona (talk) 01:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. She does meet both wp:AUTHOR and WP:CREATIVE. To be fair, citing Worldcat as a source for validity in a claim of overall reach for this author's published work may not be suitable. Participation in Worldcat itself is not a requirement amongst OCLC libraries, according to the Worldcat website. The OCLC site gives an estimate of approximately 1 million libraries worldwide. Worldcat has a total of 72,000 participating libraries according to their own website and here on Wikipedia. This constitutes approximately only 7% of the world's total libraries. Citing Worldcat as a source for notability with regard to this author's book may not be fair considering it does not include 93% of the world's library data. For example, Boston, one of the largest public municipal library systems in the United States, lists two copies of this author's book in their catalog. Yet, this detail is not even included on Worldcat. According to Wikipedia's existing policy and guidelines for authors and other creative professionals, 'the person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors'. Suzy Kassem and her book are both widely cited by peers, notables, and professionals across many industries and organizations worldwide. The additional citations added to the article (Sir Richard Branson, Forbes and Huffington Post) strongly help to support this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BgY72 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC) — BgY72 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

BgY72 now blocked for socking. Meters (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BASIC, and does not meet notability standards as an author, filmmaker or any of the other creative professionals. Article creator now indef'ed. Meters (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to Wikipedia guidelines, people are "presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The citations in this article are supportive of this requirement. Furthermore, for WP:AUTHOR, this individual has "produced a collective body of work" as indicative of the work published for the title "Rise Up and Salute The Sun" - which is also noted in two of the citations associated with this article. It was mentioned earlier in this discussion that the individual's sources are 30strictly limited to 'a press release, a children's book, a couple of quotes (not about the subject, just quoting her) and her own website', but a careful study of the links provided at the top of the discussion,including a thorough search in many search engines prove this claim to be wrong and misleading. The citations indicate the author is reaching a global audience, and go well beyond just ‘a pair of blog posts'. It's been made clear that this individual's core talent is in writing (writing for visual storytelling, short stories, essays, poetry), and the previous reference to filmmaking (commercials, music videos, short film) seems to have served here as only a creative supplement. Her IMDB link shows Harmony Parker to be 40-minute film. The author's article never stated it was a feature. It's not controversial for anyone to have more than one talent, but customary for people to be known for the talent that 's most visible; i.e., see Viggo Peter Mortensen, Jr.. Also, I've not stumbled upon a single 'press release" as mentioned above (please supply the link), but instead I've encountered a couple of articles from the United Emirates, since the book came forth from that region. The main article covered the author's book where she's featured in the main photo, and another article from Publisher's Weekly features the book as the main draw, since the author is mentioned immediately in the first paragraph.The author has grown significantly since 2011 and her quotes are circulating around the world. In response to a comment above about 'self-promotion' on social media, I have found the author to have abandoned her Facebook fan account page back in 2013 due to censorship (read statement on the page), and another statement about abandoning the rest of her Facebook accounts last year appears on her www.styleisking.blogspot.com account. Also, she clearly states in the same post, and in a directory found on Wordpress, that she has never opened or operated a Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn, or Google+ account. She has only been committed to her blogspot and WP accounts where she rarely posts, and as her archives prove. She is not promoting herself on social media, but people sharing quotes taken from her book are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.197.229.40 (talk • contribs) 17:18, February 24, 2016‎ — 178.197.229.40 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Let's be honest and civilized here, sharing poetry and writing to the masses is only a promotion of love. She's a rebel as your checklists should have already revealed, an individual who doesn't conform to normal standards, while other writers on bestseller lists and with publicity trains hold back giving their all unless it comes with the promise of a royalty paycheck. This is chiefly the reason why there's even a discussion here on her merit, so experts outside her chosen fields can decide between themselves if she's worthy enough to be given public titles on their network for what she already does. Slighting her from every angle only makes one appear small and less credible. Strong keep. Web users will be anxious to know more about her when this discussion is finally made available in search results. This is why the principle of acting in good faith is at the heart of decent work. ~ Richard Eyre — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.197.233.246 (talk • contribs) 19:22, February 24, 2016‎ — 178.197.233.246 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep- Writing a book is part of what makes a writer notable, no? If people are buying it as a syllabus requirement from Barnes and Nobles for assigned readings, then it must be important in some way I hope! I don't think my prof would have made our class buy it if she didn't find the writer worth studying. Just think of it this way, if it was being recommended as classroom literature in 2014, then what will it be like when the writer has gray hair? I liked the writer's philosophies and how she saw the world. If anything just make the book cheaper for students! I live in Arizona and had to be notified by email when the book became available because both copies had been checked out of Scottsdale Public Library! This isn't in Worldcat! I just checked! Nobody talked about colleges studying the writer and her ideas! Besides this point, the writer has content that shows she is being acknowledged in plenty of verifiable sources. I find it interesting that new people who've created accounts specifically to discuss this issue here and therefore could be expected to be knowledgeable and passionate about it -have been ignored- whereas the existing notes from the judges includes "my searches on her name turn up nothing beyond a pair of blog posts." It seems new users have added additional material to the page that have expanded on the original content-and this still is being seen as to not be making a significant contribution to the article? Do these judges even read and who are they? My friend in Germany has the book! Where did he get it from then? This discussion makes no sense whatsoever! Just admit you have problems with the book because everything I've read on the writer or the book here sound like you guys are discussing something and someone entirely different. Is this on purpose? Are we talking about the renowned Suzy Kassem from Ohio with words all over the place? That one? Black hair and olive skin who writes cool poetry and is smart as hell? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vkatz (talk • contribs) 21:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC) — Vkatz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Bushell[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a filmmaker with no strong claim of notability under WP:CREATIVE -- the notability here boils down to a lip-dub video on YouTube and a short documentary film released only on Vimeo, and the sourcing is entirely to local community weekly newspapers in his own hometown area, and fails to demonstrate any of the wider coverage necessary to satisfy WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 09:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not satisfying any of the applicable notability, nothing suggests independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An amateur student filmmaker with a wikipedia page about his projects? This is an easy delete.ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:27, 24 February 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, then redirect to Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network, where there is already plenty of information about her. I will watchlist the redirect to see if it needs protection. --MelanieN (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meryl Dorey[edit]

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

This is an article on an anti-vaccination activist. I think it unlikely that it will ever have any content unrelated to the Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network, and if it does it is unlikely to look like anything other than a hatchet job - Dorey is not a nice person. My personal view is this should be a redirect but that was reverted. Reverting a redirect on the basis of one credulous source is not a good idea. So I think thie article needs to be deleted and the redirect restored, per WP:COATRACK. It's also concerning that the main editor of this article has few contributions to any other topic and displays signs of ownership. Guy (Help!) 09:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A search for "Meryl Dorey" returns close to 20,000 results so this alone is significant. Dorey is no longer president of the AVN but will most likely continue her anti-vaccination stance. While the redirect has been in place it has discouraged people from editing a page on Dorey. The page needs time for different editors to contribute to as most pages do. Surely deleting a page because it is just beginning is not justified? Also, the AVN may be around for a lot longer than Dorey so will the redirect still be in place long after Dorey is gone?Exazonk (talk) 09:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They divide into three broad classes: antivaxers bigging her up (100% of which are unreliable sources); skeptics eviscerating her bullshit (95% plus of which are not reliable sources); and media sources which are really about the AVN. Guy (Help!) 10:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems to me that the usual way we determine notability is significant coverage of the individual in secondary independent media. Not interviews, not fluff pieces, but significant coverage of this person as a person. It seems to me that's the standard of work we have to find. Whether they are "nice" or not is not something we can be swayed by here. Here is one this in the SMH, there may well be others. JMWt (talk) 10:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is the sole source the article currently cites. It is uncritical. The issue is that sources that do exist (e.g. [3], [4], [5] are really all about the AVN - she has no notability independent of AVN, which is why a redirect is more appropriate . Guy (Help!) 10:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the measure is not whether or not it is critical, but whether it is a secondary unrelated source. The thing that we're trying to find out is whether there exists already notability for this person, and we look for significant coverage beyond the brief and passing. The fact is that the media do report on this person as an individual, that there are significant profile pieces of this individual and so on. In fact there are also other significant mentions of her in books and academic papers as being significant together with a large number of shorter news stories. The fact that they are or are not on the page currently is irrelevant. They can't just be rejected as being "all about the AVN". JMWt (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So if you are a famous member of a band but you are not notable for anything other than the band then you shouldn't have your own wiki page but instead only be mentioned on the band's wiki page?Exazonk (talk) 10:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Define "famous". Dorey has a certain minor notoriety, but is unlikely ever to be featured in the Dictionary of National Biography. The lack of notability can be seen very simply: the article contains one source, which could have been written by her PR, and nothing whatsoever about her use of legal thuggery to silence critics, her misuse of AVN funds, the court cases she's lost, her attacks on the parents of children who have died of preventable disease. The problem is that she and AVN were synonymous for a long time. Only recently have they separated. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just amazed at how much push back there is here about Meryl Dorey. When I first started the page on MD back around 2009, it was taken down within two hours because of the living person policy not because the page was not true. So, I then started the page on the AVSN and I went through significant problems trying to keep it up because people didn't seem to want to know the facts about how damaging the AVSN was back then. I was accused of lots of things. But now look at the AVSN page it is a wealth of information about how the organisation damages society - that is it consolidates facts from all over the internet. The MD page should be the same, consolidation of facts about MD. Who are we to try and tell people what they should and should not read? If someone wants to read up on an infamous person who used to run a damaging organisation then let them. If they want to know when she was, born, where she lived and why she went down this anti-vaccination path then let them. If the redirect is put back in place then so be it, it will then just be this irritating recursive link that people click on that then loops back onto itself. Exazonk (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So a Dorey WP page seems to be a 7 year project of yours? Best to just let it go. Was opposition to it before, still is now. Just like Dorey, this page will just blow up in our face, be a lot of hard work, constantly shifting, duplicitious and attract narcissists. Gongwool (talk) 07:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete and redirect back to AVSN. There's nothing nice to say about this person, as the sources say. But there are unrealistic WP gatekeepers trying to turn this into a feel-good article restricting it to nice comments only - that can't work. So should never have been redirected from AVSN as all cites related to Dorey's misbehaviour are related to AVSN. It seeems like the page was set up as an attempt to whitewash AVSN from Dorey's previous leadership misdemeanours - that won't wash. Delete it and restore the redirect back to AVSN asap. Thank you. Gongwool (talk) 10:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"There's nothing nice to say about this person" is not a standard we can use for pages on wikipedia. JMWt (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point JMWt. So it needs to be deleted. All activities relate to AVSN. And shes no activist hero as other sources attest to Exazonik. Gongwool (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you are reading far too much into this Gongwool as WP is all about credible information based on reliable sources expressed in a NPOV. Your talk of whitewashing and nice comments is not reflected in the the few lines present in the article. As mentioned below, more biographical information needs to be entered but this will come in time as more editors find the article.Exazonk (talk) 12:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think Dorey may well qualify as wikinotable although editorially I tend to favour not having a separate article unless there is some substantial biographical information. So, I shan't !vote on that aspect. However, it is entirely inappropriate to have the name as a red link and at the very least we need a redirect to Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network The redirect could be protected subsequently if, hypothetically, this turned out to be necessary. Thincat (talk) 11:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So is there a time limit on how quickly substantial biographical information has to be put up?Exazonk (talk) 11:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, there isn't. I would have left the article to develop and I think it was unhelpful to have nominated it for deletion when the nominator considers it should be a redirect. The nomination is an example of activist editing. These matters should have been sorted out at the talk page, not here. However, if this were to become a redirect I would suggest building up the material in draft or user space before seeking to recreate the article. Thincat (talk) 11:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:BLP? This is why we have Draft space. Guy (Help!) 11:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you added a link to WP:BLP as in a nutshell it says this, "Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research." Can you please explain how this page has violated this? It seems that the deletion notice was possibly added in haste when a discussion on the talk page would have been more productive?Exazonk (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Questions to ponder? It seems that the logic for the deletion notice is something like this, Dorey is only notable for the AVSN and the AVSN page covers that quite well and if a Meryl Dorey page existed it would mostly intersect with the AVSN page. This is true, but it doesn't get around the problem of where biographical information on Dorey should be placed. The bio information can't be placed on the AVSN page as that is about the AVSN so really it needs to go on the MD page but if the page is changed to a redirect then it can't go there. It really does seem that the only logical thing to do is to have a MD page even if it is small as we need some place to put the bio information and details about her life - even if her life is not that exciting. The logic of stating that a person is only notable for one reason and thus they should not have bio information seems irrational to me? Hypothetically if the MD page is taken down and bio information is added to the AVSN page, would this invalidate another WP policy as surely this will happen? Secondly if biographical information is taken off the AVSN page does this mean that WP won't allow bio information on an extremely notable person?Exazonk (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why should biographical information on Dorey be placed anywhere? Born in america is mildly interesting, but all the horrible, stupid and unintentionally hilarious things she has done are under the umbrella of AVN. Guy (Help!) 23:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you would be in favour of deleting all the biographical information of horrible, infamous, notable people? Exazonk (talk) 08:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. We have an article on the homicidal homeopath Dr. Crippen, because many books have been written about him, but people who commit murder would typically not get a biography, there would instead be an article on the murder. Adam Lanza is a redirect tot he article on the Sandy Hook shooting. The source with which this article was created appears to be the only actual profile of Dorey and even that is largely related to her AVN activities. Guy (Help!) 09:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So the article on Martin Bryant shouldn't really exist as the majority of the story is covered in the Port Arthur massacre (Australia) article? In relation to the one source used for the MD article, it would be improved in time as other editors contributed. The article isn't being considered for deletion due to accuray though but rather that the AVSN article covers most of her history and she isn't notable for anything else. The subjectivity of this topic is interesting in that I thought WP was supposed to be from a NPOV but the general atmosphere here seems to be more subjective. Exazonk (talk) 09:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, no - but see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Guy (Help!) 13:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete yes. Lol, i can see where this is going thanks to those who made page. All the reported repulsive stuff about her will go to avn page if her fan allows it. And the few snippets of non contravery reporting will be kept here. Lol, unbalanced joke of a wp page it will be. Did the person who first undircted the diversions' and made this page consult with others first? Umm, NOJewjoo (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC) II[reply]

Delete and merge reliably sourced content as needed. She does not appear to be notable outside of her activity with AVN. Chrisw80 (talk) 00:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network, as she's not notable outside of that context. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
- Redirect to Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network. She is only reported in the context of one thing. LibStar (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network as per comments above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:16, 25 February 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 Woodstock (film). Never close on one !vote but like NRP I'm only finding sources on Woodsock so it does make sense to just redirect there.... so redirect it is./ (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Bell[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a film director and producer, which essentially just asserts that (s)he exists and sources it only to IMDb with no evidence of reliable source coverage. As always, filmmakers do not automatically get Wikipedia articles just because they have IMDb profiles; they must be the subject of coverage in reliable sources to earn one. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source it better than this. Bearcat (talk) 09:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Woodstock (film). I found a little bit of coverage: [6] from KCRW and [7] from Arizona Daily Sun. There are also a few more trivial mentions in Google Books. But I'm not sure that all this really adds up to notability. The majority of the coverage that I did find was about his involvement in Woodstock, so I think this could be redirected there. Plus, if anyone finds better coverage, the article can easily be restored. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:18, 19 February 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. The participants present a good case for keeping the article in absence of valid deletion arguments. Enough coverage in sources to pass WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Yash ! 11:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OpenShift[edit]

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

This reads like a directory entry. The information is only about what services they support. DGG ( talk ) 07:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: OpenShift is a big service, and certainly must be notable. I suspect the article can be improved, although I agree that in it's current state it doesn't warrant keeping. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and draft and userfy if needed as none of this better satisfies the applicable software notability, not yet convincing enough draft and userfy if needed. SwisterTwister talk 17:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 21:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this looks pretty notable: An O'Reilly book on OpenShift, Infoworld award winner, lots of third party reviews. DGG is right, the article was just feature lists, so I stubified the article. to just the noncontroversial prose. It still needs better referencing and development. A notable topic and a stub with the advertising removed suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 04:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY (thanks mv for de-crufting) and WP:GNG (subject of an entire book and enough other sources to meet the "multiple in-depth reliable sources" test). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No valid reason given for deletion. Notability established by refs already in article. Please don't nominate articles that need improvement for deletion. It is clearly an effective way to get others to improve them but it is an abuse of AfD. ~Kvng (talk) 21:58, 20 February 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rasna (actress)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Appearances in films of non-named parts failing to meet WP:ACTOR. Awards won presented by channel shows were airing on. Generally appearing non-noteable. Amortias (T)(C) 22:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actress had the leading role in 500 episodes of Paarijatham. Atlantic306 (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is not having any reference for stating the importance of the article. The reference "The Hindu" states she is awarded for actress. The awards is presented by Asianet, and awards provided by Asianet is only for their programmes which is airing via their channel. So nothing special with the award.The article fails WP:ACTOR and WP:ENT JackTracker (talk) 10:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as the current article, information and sources, is still questionably solid for the entertainers notability, with nothing suggesting solid independent notability yet. SwisterTwister talk 07:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No support for notability outside a soap opera whose article has no reliable sources. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of significant coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn (singer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Sources given are either promotional interviews with various blogs or concert/release information. The awards claimed are non-notable. An IP removed a PROD tag. schetm (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regional and trivial coverage. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this specifically suggests solid independent notability for her own article. SwisterTwister talk 07:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Likely paid editor at work. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of fraternities and sororities at University of California, Santa Barbara[edit]

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

Non-notable, unencyclopedic list of local chapters of national organizations, fails NOTDIR and meets past AfD precedent Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 17:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom AusLondonder (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: why can't this information just be part of the main university article (if it isn't already)?Julietdeltalima (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 01:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss International Queen Malaysia[edit]

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

There is no pageant contest like Miss International Queen Malaysia —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 14:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 14:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 14:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete unclear if this actual title exists. LibStar (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is about Malaysian candidates to Miss International Queen. There is nothing in there that indicates that the subject of Malaysian candidates is itself independently notable. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 25 February 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SharkTec[edit]

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

I don't think this company meets the notability criteria. The article ties it to Shark Defense and, in turn, provides sources that may lead to a conclusion that Shark Defense is notable, but none of the sources says anything about SharkTec. I also don't find adequate support online for a finding of notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the updated version that addresses the notability concerns by listing publications, news articles, magazines, and websites that specifically mention SharkTec. I believe the notability policy & guidelines are met with these new citations. Rmarshall15--Rmarshall15 (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Largoplazo:) Please let me know of any concerns regarding the notability criteria so I can address them as I firmly believe this criteria has been satisfied with the additional citations added Rmarshall15 (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still none of this has any better convincing signs of a better applicably notable article. SwisterTwister talk 08:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister:) To my understanding, an article must meet the notability criteria of wikipedia. As per your comment, it seems that you have already concluded that this article is indeed a notable article but you have not seen signs of "a better applicably notable article". It would be appreciated if you could clarify your statement and rationale for why or why not this article should exist under the minimum notability guidelines of Wikipedia. Rmarshall15 (talk) 11:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although there is a list of coverage, this particularly needs solid in-depth third-party sources coverage as the current article is still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 17:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No in-depth coverage of the company, just mentions of their repellent, typically in coverage or testing of various repellents. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. and rewrite. Tthis is written as an advertisement "our company" but I think the product is astually notable--perhaps a move into draft space would work best. DGG ( talk ) 07:30, 27 February 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 G-Shock. (non-admin closure) Yash ! 10:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casio DW-6100[edit]

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

Unsourced, no indication of notability. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 16:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Casio. The watch exists, but is completely non-notable. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 00:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect to G-Shock, which probably should be renamed to Casio G-Shock, but that's another topic. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to G-Shock. Fairly unnotable and maybe even a bit obscure. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to G-Shock. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:40, 25 February 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 Casiotone. Overall consensus is to Redirect so pointless leaving this for another day!, Obvious consensus is obvious. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casio CTK 230[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable on its own. Redirect to Casiotone? BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 16:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Casiotone. No indication of independent notability. Just a product catalog entry. --DAJF (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~or Redirect to Casiotone.~~ --OpenFuture (talk) 13:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Casiotone per DAJF. Jun Kayama 05:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Casiotone says it's about 1980s keyboards but this is from 2005? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, this is in fact not a Casiotone branded keyboard. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Delete I looked into it a bit more and there is a series of CTK keyboards and this is just one unnotable one among them. The CTK series is mentioned at Casio#Musical instruments which is where the Redirect should point to instead of Casiotone. However it's just briefly mentioned there so I don't know if this is even worth a Redirect. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 12:52, 22 February 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Intissar Chelly[edit]

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

Non-notable news presenter just doing her job. Sources like whopopular.com can't establish notability (popularity != notability, and this isn't a reliable source to begin with). A Google search didn't reveal anything better source-wise. GermanJoe (talk) 05:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage in reliable sources. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as questionable for the applicable notability, unlikely notable local journalist. SwisterTwister talk 07:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lek Pervizi[edit]

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

Not notable enough. His works include one collection of poetry in French/Albanian and an auto-biographic book regarding his prison time. The references are difficult to verify. The rest of Google hits come from blogs or unreliable sources. The corresponding articles in Albanian and Italian show the same issue, probably WP:COI --Mondiad (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 02:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 02:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 02:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best and draft & userfy as this article is still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per SwisterSister. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 25 February 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 15:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ab Meri Baari[edit]

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

Reliable sources online discuss a pro-retirement campaign, not an action movie. ~~I heard there was a Wikipedia essay that helps users execute WP:BEFORE for India related articles (since basic WP:BEFORE tends to miss reliable Indian sources) but I can't find it.~~ Mr. Guye (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update Thanks, Wiae. Sources [8][9][10][11] all say in passing that the movie was cancelled in development. More evidence on which to delete this article. --Mr. Guye (talk) 23:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Guye: I think WP:INDAFD is the essay you're looking for. The search tools listed there can be helpful. /wiae /tlk 23:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDAFD: "Ab Meri Baari"

Keep as a suitable stub. Amazingly, we have enough sourcing available for this pre-internet film to show it has made its mark. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: But if you look at the sources, the only reason it was mentioned was because there were some notable actors and filmmakers that worked together on this before it was abandoned, and some of them later worked with each other to make an unrelated production. Notability is not inherited. --Mr. Guye (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And totally ignoring WP:INHERIT, if a project it were not of note, it would not even have been worthy of any mention at all. WP:NFF (paragraph 3) tells us that with souracblity a film produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed could have an article, if production efforts were notable per the guidelines. Their sad luck to try to produce a film before India got the internet. LOL Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The sources only mention the movie in passing, there is no in-depth coverage. Not notable, and unless in-depth sources can be found there simply would not be anything much to say about the move. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. What sources? The Article has no Reference List. For the record, I agree. It should be deleted. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources in the article, and those produced above are trivial mentions at best. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:47, 27 February 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. I will userfy upon request. MelanieN (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wes for Youth Online[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Relisting following a no-consensus close in 2014. The entire discussion at the time ended up being solely between me and the article's creator, with nobody at all weighing in otherwise — so I left well enough alone at the time to give the creator the opportunity to improve the sourcing, but I see that there have been there's been no improvement whatsoever since (the only edits that happened at all in 2015 were pure maintenance or grammar cleanup.) The topic is still an organization of exclusively local notability, with the sourcing being a mixture of primary sources, blogs, Twitter tweets and media coverage which doesn't expand far enough outside of its own local area to satisfy the wider audience criterion in WP:ORGDEPTH. Wikipedia does not grant groups an exemption from our notability and sourcing rules just because they do good work — it's not impossible for an organization of purely local notability to get into Wikipedia, but the sourcing has to get a lot better than this to make that happen. It's still a delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and draft & userfy at best because this article is questionably better for an encyclopedia article, currently simply giving a local perspective. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of third-party sources giving in-depth coverage of the organizations events. Local, yes, but IMHO notable. Focus on specific improvements instead. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The third-party sources are all local — but WP:ORGDEPTH specifically states that coverage of an organization has to demonstrably extend beyond the local media to get that organization over GNG. If local coverage were all it took, we'd have to start keeping articles about individual schools' PTAs and local neighbourhood resident associations and individual condo boards — because local coverage of those kinds of organizations does exist, even though encyclopedic relevance doesn't. So WP:ORG requires more than purely local coverage. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of islands of Finland. I would close it as merge but there's nothing to merge. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 23:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hevonkakki[edit]

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

A small island that sports a somewhat amusing name in Finnish. To cite the edit summary of the person who created the article: "Translates to 'Horse Shit!' LOL". No significant coverage in independent reliable sources (WP:GNG). Google draws only weather data. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:31, 4 February 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 February 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perhaps simply because Wikipedia includes geography locations including islands and I would've also suggested merging elsewhere but there's no obvious suggestion. 05:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, provided that "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist" (WP:GEOLAND) - and I've found nothing, SwisterTwister only weather data. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this supposed to be Hevonkack? [12]--Oakshade (talk) 04:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Oakshade: Yes, in Swedish (Finland is officially bilingual; many places have official names in both languages). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GEOLAND. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of islands of Finland. Per WP:5P, Wikipedia also functions as a gazetteer. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GoFindFriends[edit]

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

Promotional type article for social network. Of the four links provided, the NY Post is an in depth, reliable source, but other than that, I can't find any in depth coverage. The WSJ link is a trivial mention, not about the company. There doesn't seem to be any other coverage. From what I can tell, it doesn't look like this meets the WP:GNG or WP:CORP. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 19:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 19:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 19:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of the current article suggests better satisfying the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability not established Shritwod (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - NY Post and FOX5NY had in depth coverage. Not much, but way ahead of most articles that has an AfD. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure a two minute interview on a local TV channel qualifies as significant coverage. FuriouslySerene (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Media mentorship[edit]

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

violates original research policy giso6150 (talk) 14:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests a better notable article aside from its apparent usage. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable, nothing to explain why this is different from other mentorship. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:30, 19 February 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 YouTube Rewind. Note that the nominator also stated in a later comment that they do not oppose a merge. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube Rewind: What Does 2013 Say?[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTFILM. No evidence of significant third party coverage of this YouTube video. It exists and a lot of people watched it....which doesn't make it notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or merge to Youtube Rewind per this and this. edtiorEهեইдအ😎 08:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The google search results mean nothing. I wouldn't oppose a merge. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. YouTube Rewind is notable, but individual editions probably are not. With little more content in this article than a cast list, it doesn't justify a separate article. QueenCake (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If this is merged, Rewind YouTube Style 2012 will need to be examined to see if the coverage for that is heavy enough to warrant its own entry. I would argue that the article only really needs a general synopsis section for each video at this point in time. If/when the episodes/videos grow too numerous, there can be a list spinoff page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also mildly have to question the need for the cast page on the main article, given that relatively few of the people have appeared each year. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. YouTube Rewind is noticeable as it is created by Youtube. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it seems this is best connected to that, questionably independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 02:59, 25 February 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 Mark B Marcus Byrd article. Nobody commented on Carolina Anthem (all the comments were about "he" or "the article" (singular) so I am closing that one as no consensus, with no prejudice against speedy renomination. MelanieN (talk) 23:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark B Marcus Byrd[edit]

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

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

Yet another of the Natalac walled garden. It is just possible that there is one valid topic between this and Carolina Anthem, but frankly I think not. Guy (Help!) 09:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing better for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 17:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Your Wrong "Guy" / Jzg " Natalac walled garden? ::Really:: What ever you have personally against Natalac or what I write is on you.. I'll ignore your petty games and add refs for this page that you've selfishly sought out salted and attacked with your falsehoods..and opinions.. just so it will be noted..

POWER 98 FM - http://power98fm.com/2015/12/07/carolina-street-connect-mark-b/

FOX NEWS - http://www.foxcarolina.com/Clip/12171076/rapper-creates-carolina-panthers-anthem

Chat Sports - http://www.chatsports.com/carolina-panthers/a/carolina-forever-new-panthers-anthem-perfect-super-bowl-rallying-cry-25349

Charlotte Observer - http://www.charlotteobserver.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/theoden-janes/article53079795.html

WSPA - http://wspa.com/2016/01/25/panthers-super-fan-writes-carolina-anthem/

Carolina Panthers practicing Josh Norman Working out to Mark B Carolina Anthem - https://www.instagram.com/p/1J84zVHImb/

Josh Norman Working out to Mark B Carolina Anthem again - https://www.instagram.com/p/5JDOKXnIqe/

Any Images from Players, Mark B etc. Available link - Natalac Records - https://www.flickr.com/photos/natalac/? Yameka (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Swister Twister, although the article certainly needs some cleanup. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources above are mainly non-reliable and all are trivial. They certainly do not meet the requirements of WP:N. Neither does he meet any of the criteria at WP:MUSICBIO. Polequant (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet wp:NMUSIC, which requires at multiple, independent, non-promotional sources. I don't consider radio and TV entertainment sections to be independent or non-promotional. This is a single musical work that has gotten attention, and it is mainly connected to this one sports event. His musical works, including this one, are self-published. So until he gets a recording contract and there are serious reviews of his work, he doesn't meet notability. LaMona (talk) 02:08, 22 February 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia for World Heritage[edit]

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

Not notable, possible redirect to Wikipedia:Wikipedia for World Heritage. No secondary sources either. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 06:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I suppose if not mergeable.Merge this perhaps to Outline to Wikipedia or another closely-linked article if others wish because this may not actually need to be severely deleted and could be salvaged elsewhere. Unlikely independently notable though, SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Clearly notable and more than enough news coverage. ([13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]) Also @SwisterTwister: Nothing should be merged into the outlines as those are just showing the hierarchical relationships (via tree structure) of the various topics of a field. There shouldn't really be content on these pages that isn't to be found in articles already. --Fixuture (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As self-promotion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: this is not thought through. Just because Wikipedia is (currently) the major encyclopedia of humanity it ought to not cover the notable cultural phenomena of itself? Wikipedia needs to cover itself properly as itself is an integral part of contemporary culture. The amount of news coverage about this outreach proves its notability. --Fixuture (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fixuture, Kindly WP:AGF. I don't weigh in at AFD without looking for sources, and I usually confine myself to subjects where I know something about the field or context. Sourcing appears to have been largely confined to a flurry of articles at the projects 10th anniversary, have you found significant coverage since then? Nominating oneself for World Heritage status is a widely used self-publicity technique. Moreover, despite the extremely politicized nature of the World Heritage selection process, World Heritage truly is focused on the physical past.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

have you found significant coverage since then?

@E.M.Gregory: I've linked 9 major news articles above. All of them have the world heritage project, not the 10th birthday as their main story.

Nominating oneself for World Heritage status is a widely used self-publicity technique

I don't think that Wikipedia needs publicity. Wikipedia being declared world heritage makes sense and isn't just some publicity-technique. Also that's unfounded speculation.

World Heritage truly is focused on the physical past

The exceptionality of this outreach makes it just more notable. Also: things aren't always the best the way they are. Sometimes deviating from common practice can be a good thing. If this project would mean or imply a rethinking of the concept of world heritage it would make this project just way more notable.

Anyways, from the listed sources it's clear that the article meets WP:N.

--Fixuture (talk) 20:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic comfortably passes WP:N per a review of some of the sources listed above by Fixuture. As such, an article about the topic is wholly qualified. See also WP:NEXIST, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep in the hope that it can be improved and more sources found. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:34, 19 February 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Renault Energy F1 V6 Turbo[edit]

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

Insufficient notability for a standalone article listing only technical specifications on a general purpose encyclopedia T v x1 01:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator. Engine is not notable. 3 victories in 38 races. Article only exists because manufacturer conveniently uses a linear namesake from year to year, which is not the case with some other, more successful manufacturers. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 07:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there seem to be a bunch of non-notable Renault F1 engines listed.. although there *are* some engines that seem notable in the sport for one reason or another, this is not one of them. Shritwod (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Twirlypen. Nordic Dragon 08:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. The only sources are simply notices that Renault unveiled a new engine. Not a single in-depth source explaining what is unique (if anything) with it. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Special Needs Schools in Pakistan[edit]

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

Single item list which isn't listing things that have Wikipedia articles to list, but is instead listing the offsite contact information of a school that doesn't have a Wikipedia article and then links to a lot of tangentially related Wikipedia articles on general topics which that don't actually fall within the scope of the list's definition (e.g. autism therapies, special education, disability studies, early childhood intervention and Autism Cymru — none of which are schools in Pakistan). Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages -- lists exist on Wikipedia as an aid to finding Wikipedia articles, not as a way to construct a phone and mailing address directory for things that don't have Wikipedia articles to list. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages --OpenFuture (talk) 15:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:28, 19 February 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of special schools in Karachi[edit]

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

This "list" is actually a comprehensive directory of every school that exists at all, whether it has a Wikipedia article or not -- complete with its mailing address, phone number(s) and offsite links to its own webpage and/or social media profile. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages -- lists exist on Wikipedia as an aid to finding articles which exist on Wikipedia, not as a way to collate comprehensive contact directories of things that don't have Wikipedia articles. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as per nom. If it had encyclopedic information, eg, date established, size of school, class levels, type of courses, etc. then it would be a keep. Aoziwe (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unlikely solid enough for an encyclopedia article, this is simply a local list. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages --OpenFuture (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:24, 19 February 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Smolen[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Held a minor political office and was a failed candidate for a state office. Lack of significant third party coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per proposal. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, unless there's something special we're not seeing from Internet sources. Seems to have been a town commissioner from a specific ward, in a township that is now about 53,000 people; that doesn't seem to meet WP:POLITICIAN. Came in 9th (if I'm reading it right) in a state senate race. --Closeapple (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Municipal councillors in small towns are not automatically notable just for existing, but rather get Wikipedia articles only if you can source and substance them a lot better than this — and unsuccessful candidates for higher office get articles only if they already have some other valid and properly sourced claim of notability independent of the candidacy. Plus it's one of my own personal rules that if you have to source stuff directly to their death notice on the web page of the funeral home that held their funeral, then practically by definition it's unlikely that there's enough media coverage of them to get them past WP:GNG: the deaths of notable people, after all, get written about by the media as news, while the death notice on the funeral home's webpage is normally written by their own family. Bearcat (talk) 21:58, 22 February 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 The Cider House Rules. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 05:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cider House Rules[edit]

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

Podcast with no claim of notability. No significant coverage in external reliable sources. LK (talk) 03:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Cider House Rules (which includes a hatnote directing readers to The Cider House Rules (film)). After conducting independent research, I could find no coverage in secondary sources. Therefore, I have concluded that this fails WP:GNG. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as perhaps this is best connected to that, questionable for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:51, 25 February 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. MelanieN (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Silva (businessman)[edit]

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

Individual is virtually unknown outside of running for President of the United States as a member of a party that may not even have ballot access (and, as it stands, is only on the ballot in Colorado). Individual doesn't meet the minimum level of notability required for an article. ALPolitico (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:POLOUTCOMES, "losing candidates for office below the national level are generally deleted unless previous notability can be demonstrated." MB298 (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that the same rule applies for national level, except that they are also noted in lists of hopefuls. It's the sentence above in WP:POLOUTCOMES. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I doubt the article meets the alternative notability guideline for politicians. Still, it seems to meet the general notability guideline, which is usually a Keep. But then there's the people notable for only one event exclusion, that one event being forming a minor party and running for high office. I see some coverage of Silva independent of that event — as a restauranteur and as an "undercover boss" — among Google hits; if those sources are found to be reliable, I'd lean toward Keep. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 01:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MB298 and Matt Fitzpatrick.--Cojovo (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am the creator of this article, which was never added to the AfD log until 18 February 2016, nor was I notified of this AfD by the nominator. I believe that the variety of sources used in this article establish that the subject meets the general notability guideline. In any event, a presidential candidate who actually qualifies for the ballot is likely to be notable enough to merit an article (see United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2012 for comparison). Although Silva has only qualified for one state ballot so far, he still has months in which to try to qualify for other state ballots. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POLOUTCOMES specifically mentions lists of hopefuls, and indeed he is listed on United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2016. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, WP:POLOUTCOMES says leaders of a registered party at any level is notable even if not winning elections.In veritas (talk) 03:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, POLOUTCOMES says they can be notable on that basis, if the coverage of them in that role is adequate to meet GNG. In reality, lots of small or fringe party leaders just get redirects to the article about their party rather than standalone BLPs — and nothing in this article, for that matter, even suggests that he's actually the leader of an actual political party. Sticking a placeholder name in the "party affiliation" slot on your registration papers doesn't automatically mean there's an organized or registered party behind that name. Bearcat (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:POLOUTCOMES doesn't have rules for candidates for current races, but is clear that once the election is over this guy is not notable, unless he wins or otherwise becomes notable. "Candidates who ran but never were elected for a national legislature or other national office are not viewed as having inherent notability". We can't have articles on topics because they may become notable in the future, so reasonably that means it's not notable. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ the notability would have to be as a restaurateur; he does own a chain of restaurants that have been mentioned in the trade press, and the Orange County Business Journal would be a legit source, but it just doesn't add up to sufficient coverage for a bio. Perhaps the chain could support an article. The presidential thing looks like mere self promotion. Unless our guidelines actually stipulate that getting onto the ballot once, in one state, standing for a newly invented Party, makes you notable. I wonder if this state has an unusually easy way to get on the ballot.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC) Changing my vote.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best because this is still questionable for solid independent notability for a solidly notable article, questionably improvable aside from the current. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: Note that articles are not "solidly notable" or non-notable, topics and subjects are. Per WP:NEXIST, topic "notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article." Note that additional sources have been provided below in the discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The two Orange County links, the Restaurant News article and the North Jersey link put this restaurateur BLP past WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. The other links are acceptable when supporting an article already deemed notable. This passes, in my evaluation. BusterD (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. While the US presidential election is that rare beast that's so widely covered that a non-winning candidate who fails NPOL still has a chance of passing WP:GNG anyway, that does not confer an automatic inclusion freebie on every single person who happens to declare himself a candidate for president. I can certainly see the possibility that he might be able to pass our inclusion rules for businesspeople if a lot more substance and sourcing were piled onto the restaurant chain, but those rules don't confer an automatic inclusion freebie on all businesspeople either. No prejudice against recreation later in the year, if the volume of RS coverage gets quite a lot more substantial than this, but as of today the sourcing and substance here is not yet enough to earn him a standalone WP:BLP instead of a listing in United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2016. Bearcat (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I'm also now switching to keep, as better sourcing has been found for preexisting notability on the basis of the restaurant chain. Bearcat (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Found a handful of RS articles that contain significant coverage of Silva: [22], [23], [24]. It should be noted that all are pre-presidential candidacy and pre-Undercover Boss appearance. I contend that the addition of these sources to those already included in the article put the subject over the top of the WP:GNG hurdle.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The reliable and verifiable sources clearly about the subject meet the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 03:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep changing my vote as per editors who have brought sources showing notability as a restaurateur, not on the basis of the presidential candidate publicity stunt.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:BASIC, per a review of sources in the article and sources presented in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 26 February 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 19:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Muneeb ur Rehman Qamar[edit]

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

Minor local reporter - the article references a handful of articles in one paper - doesn't meet WP:N INeverCry 02:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's a vanity page, the main editor is the subject himself. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Vanity page. Julietdeltalima (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 25 February 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. Not really a compelling case for deletion but either way consensus is to Keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jan E Lovie-Kitchin[edit]

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

Single source article relying on possibly an autobiographical reference. Notability is not established and is doubtful. cherkash (talk) 01:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article's creator did not make a particularly compelling case for notability in the article, and his writing is prone to grammatical and factual errors, but I easily found sources that support this subject's notability. I think that there is a case for notability given her ACO life membership and given that she was one of two developers of the most popular type of LogMAR chart, the Bailey-Lovie chart. Failing that, she has an impressive citation record. I could not find a GS profile, but a GS search for JE Lovie shows citation counts of 1124, 303, 210, 177, 104, 98, 96, 86, 67... not including a couple of entries that appear to refer to other authors. EricEnfermero (Talk) 08:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think there's enough citations here for WP:PROF#C1. The >1000 citations for the acuity chart may be enough by themselves, but the other well-cited works save this from WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. on the basis of the citations.Meets WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 22:56, 23 February 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. I was almost sort-of leaning towards thinking about closing this as NC, but I'm particularly unimpressed with the argument, someone [...] who takes the time to read the easy-to-find sources might figure out keywords that would show notability at some other period of his life. Speculating that sources might exist isn't a valid argument. If you think there are sources, go find them and present them. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Howard (preacher)[edit]

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

This page is about a man only briefly at all notable in one street in London, UK. A Tag warning that Notability has not been demonstrated has been on the Page for years already. IceDragon64 (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He was a sort of color story about a decade ago [25], [26], and he still gets mentioned, The Telegraph, 2012, "an eccentric Oxford Street preacher, Philip Howard, muzzled by Asbo for pleading, “Don’t be a sinner, be a winner with Jesus”. [27]. Frankly not certain whether this is sufficient to support an article. There are more sources [28] those came up on a news search of "Philip Howard" + "Oxford Street". Rather hard to search for him since there have been rather a lot of Philips Howard down the centuries. But someone who remembers the story, or who takes the time to read the easy-to-find sources might figure out keywords that would show notability at some other period of his life.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: I don't think there is enough support for notability at this time, if all we can find is that he once was accused of harassment but cleared. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:CREATIVE or analogously with WP:MUSICBIO #7, or WP:ENTERTAINER #2. See for instance here[29] where a speechwriter in a trade group newsletter cites him as a "favourite public speaker". It seems his rhyming style of preaching and public personae was notable despite the local council seeing it as antisocial. He gets continued mentions as an example of a prominent street preacher [30] and has been parodied [31]. He also is still discussed as an example of the legal issue [32][33][34]. Regarding verifiability there are, as you would expect, a number of profiles available in newspaper archives (e.g. Proquest) from the time of the ASBO controversy. --Jahaza (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. --Jahaza (talk) 17:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete -- I am not convinced that a street evangelist is likely to be notable. If his ASBO became a cause celebre, he might be notable, but not otherwise. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A street preacher can be notable--but there is no evidence that he in particular is. DGG ( talk ) 07:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's a little bit of local coverage I'll admit, but nothing that really indicates any sort of significant fame or notability. Although I have to admire trying to make WP:ENTERTAINER fit this person, I don't agree that it's a valid comparison since he is not an entertainer, at least not deliberately. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:49, 27 February 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTS-203[edit]

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

Non-notable firearm. No English reliable sources, but perhaps a Thai search could turn up something. Created by User:Ctway sock. ansh 666 08:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines.--RAF910 (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sources that show notability. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:13, 18 February 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 "keep" arguments by the Special Purpose Accounts are not convincing. MelanieN (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AWK Solutions[edit]

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

Rejected PROD. Very promotional;potentially non-notable article. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 21:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 21:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 21:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG. References are mostly self-published or press releases and do not establish notability. ubiquity (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. Google results are mostly unrelated or social media. The article is no help, as it's just press releases. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Companies that "deliver solutions" do not belong on Wikipedia. . . Mean as custard (talk) 10:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP:I would like to contest this deletion on the below grounds.If this article is very promotional in nature, then how come the below articles are still available in wiki without any deletion or proposed deletion. Most of the below mentioned articles have external references, that is not relevant at all.

Most of them are solution provider, but they still exists here

     a) Cashkaro.com

     b) Buyhatke

     c) Mysmartprice

     d) Abhibus.com

     e) Cardback

     f) Amrita Learning

     g) Quikr

Please help me understand why this selective approach for proposed deletion in case of my article ? Where as many other are published without any problem. If you want i can give you more examples like that. --Startupindia (talk) 12:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC) — Startupindia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Can you really not see the difference between self-published material and solid sources? Your article has 12 references -- 2 from AWK's home page, 4 from social media, 3 press releases (published on sites that exist solely for the publication press releases), a directory entry, and two that don't mention AWK at all. None are from indendent, reputable sources. Looking at the others you mention, we see:

Cashkaro.com — 16 sources including The Hindu and The Economic Times. No home pages, no social media.
Buyhatke — 18 sources including The Hindu and The Times of India. No home pages, only one reference to social media.
Mysmartprice — 13 sources including Business Today and The Times of India. One ref to home page, no social media.
Abhibus.com — 2 sources: Financial Chronicle and The Times of India. Nothing self-published. OK number of refs for such a short article, IMO. However, I noticed someone had tagged it for notability. If you want to nominate it for deletion, go ahead, but my guess is it would survive with those references.
Cardback — 15 sources including The Economic Times and Business Standard. No home pages, no social media.
Amrita Learning — 4 sources, mostly The Hindu. No home pages, no social media.
Quikr — 14 sources including The Hindu and The Economic Times. No home pages, no social media.

I hope you can see from this that no one is being "selective" -- the AWK article simply does not meet the general notability guidelines. ubiquity (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are considering Business Today The Hindu and The Economic Times as neutral & reputable views, I totally agree with you. This company also have mentions on The Hindu. Getting it on Business Today is matter of 48 hours. Please give me a day's time, I will take confirmation from the owner and include those links as reference.

So I hope that this can be considered for non deletion, after the references had been updated on the article. --Startupindia (talk) 20:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: according to the ground level reality. This company has got a lot of attention because of their unique delivery techniques and improvised solutions. Although media coverage is not much, but still it has got references in many business journals. Hence my support to keep it . . .--116.212.178.147 (talk) 10:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC) — 116.212.178.147 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is obviously self-promotional and non-notable, all of the "news" sources are links to the same press release from the company. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:OTHERSTUFF is no justification for keeping a non-notable promotional article larded with marketing-ese. Julietdeltalima (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: Although the press releases refer to the same event, their is nothing wrong in it. The company is known for this niche capability and sp this event has got a wide level of coverage across many press release platform. So the question of notability is a very relative term and in the article i could see that the focus has been given on the niche development capability and not on the company promotion.--Anilpillai32 (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC) — Anilpillai32 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

STRONG KEEP: The coverage is quite good enough. further this company has quite a big coverage in local media and newspaper, which don't have any online presence. If sources like The Hindu is considered as a source of reputation, then the references provided in the he article also needs to be considered as a source of reputation. Because The Hindu also lives solely on press releases. I think it is time to reconsider the list of reputable sources for India.--Rajanmittal21 (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC) — Rajanmittal21 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete I have to go with what I see from the US search perspective -- which is only social media and the company's own web site (which I can barely access because it acts oddly in my browser). The sources cited here are all press releases, from what I can tell, and eight of them have almost exactly the same title, meaning that if they aren't press releases, they are re-hashed press releases. The text is highly promotional, with statements like: "their solutions and development are perhaps the best in the segment" "delivered some of the best solutions in this new dimensional segment". I honestly think the article would be speedy deleted as PROMO. LaMona (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Going by the popularity in the sub continent area. I think this is quite a notable company, but even more the improvised solution they are building for their clients. one thing I wonder is how Pollard's Chicken survived in wikipedia and this article is being debated for deletion ? --Jemes16 (talk) 05:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)" — Jemes16 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - I would argue that this article isn't promotional. I would strongly argue that a client base of 200+ in addition to a timeframe of 24 months is worth being notable and credible. These facts certainly needs to be considered in the Wikipedia tests for inclusion. Again, examples of lesser publicized companies that have met Wikipedia's test and have long standing in the encyclopedia community.--Vcom1983 (talk) 11:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC) — Vcom1983 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Clive Barker. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 05:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphim, Inc.[edit]

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

Contested PROD, non-notable company, fails WP:ORG JMHamo (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. It produces notable films and publishes notable book. The only question to decide is whether to keep an independent article or merge into its principal owner, the very notable Clive Barker. There are good arguments on both sides of that question, but none for outright deletion. It's not a Lucasfilm-scale business, but, like Peter Jackson's Wingnut Films, it's more consequential than most of the members of Category:Film production companies of the United States. Given the nom's failure to provide anything more than an unsupported just-not-notable rationale, there's no reason not to extend this discussion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Where is the significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic? JMHamo (talk) 08:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Clive Barker as my searches found nothing convincingly better and this is questionable for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 00:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Clive Barker as it has no separate notability. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 25 February 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) sst✈ 05:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kairos (journal)[edit]

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

Randykitty (talk · contribs) originally PRODed this with the rationale "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources apart from a single blog post. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." As an ongoing journal of 20 years, it would surprise me (although it is not impossible) that this is indeed the case. I'm for the moment, neutral on deletion, leaning towards a delete, but I think this journal merits a bit more consideration than PROD.

According to MIAR [35] the journal is indexed in the Modern Language Association Database, also ERIC [36], both of whose selectivity I know nothing about.
The 'single blog post'. however, has to be given due weight here. This is not some puff piece from a random blog we're talking about, but rather an invited in-depth interview on the 18 years of Kairos by the Library of Congress. This is the main thing that gives me pause. Why would the LoC interview these guys if they were not notable? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It has been around long enough to be noted. Still, it is not even indexed in Scopus, the least selective database of those mentioned in NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 06:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indexing alone wouldn't be the criteria I would judge this journal by. It's strange that it's so poorly indexed, but searching reveals plenty of sources that discuss this journal in a more-than-in-passing way [37]. I'm having difficulty judging whether they establish notability, given that quite often these are sources that seem close to the journal itself. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It should be judged compared to other journals in the field, members of Category:Rhetoric journals (which I created now). None of them seem well indexed, so maybe rhetoric folks just don't care much about indexing. Wikipedia's journal inclusion rules should reflect the notability customs of the respective field -- most of the time that is indexation, other times just being cited a lot should count. Kairos and other journals are mentioned in a 2009 Wiley book authored by Wayne C. Booth, where it says (p.24), "there are now many journals and associations featuring rhetoric",[38] followed by a footnote listing the journal names.[39] fgnievinski (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's an original interpretation of notability! Just create a category of non-notable stuff and then say that because it is as non-notable as the rest, it's actually notable! :-D We take indexation as reliable sources and because that goes together with an in-depth evaluation of a journal, we take it as an in-depth source meeting GNG. Being "mentioned" in a footnote in a book is far removed from in-depth coverage. --Randykitty (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're trying to impose the notability rules of science journals on humanities journals. fgnievinski (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NJournals is a stand-in for GNG. I'm trying to impose notability, period... If we follow your reasoning, we could just as well do away with AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 07:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—per WP:GNG. Additional citations (updated with notes 22:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)):

1. Eyman, Douglas; Ball, Cheryl (2015). "Digital Humanities Scholarship and Electronic Publication". In Ridolfo, Jim; Hart-Davidson, William (eds.). Rhetoric and the Digital Humanities. University of Chicago Press. pp. 65–79. ISBN 978-0-226-17655-0.

"peer-reviewed, independent, open-acces journal" (p66)
"publishing screen-based, media-rich DH [digital humanities] scholarship since 1996" (p66)
"mission ... has been to publish scholarship that examines digital and mult-modal composing practices, promoting work that enacts its scholarly argument through rhetorical and innovative uses of new media" (p66)
"authors design their own Web texts" (p66)
Limitations on material accepted: "If we cannot host a Web text on our server, we will not publish it." (p67)
"no budget" (p67)
"staff uses the same technologies that were available in 1996: e-mail, listservs, SFTP, and HTML editors" (p67)
Received NEH Digital Humanities Start-Up Grant (Level II, $50,000) "to explore building scholarly multi-media plug-ins for open journal systems" (67)
Compare to "several other online Web text journals in digital rhetoric, including C&C Online and Vectors and ... Enculturation and Harlot of the Arts" in that "design is treated as an equivalent form of argument to written content." (p69)
Contrast with "Digital Humanities Quarterly or Journal of Digital Humanities" where "design as argument is mostly absent". (p69)
"As a case in point, one of the most innovative and compelling examples of new media scholarship that we have published in Kairos, Anne Wysocki's A Bookling Monument (2002), is no longer accessible in all current browsers because the version of Macromedia Director used to the create it is no longer fully supported by the latest version of the Shockwave plugin needed to view the work; moreover, that plugin is not available for Linux-based systems. And, between 2006 and 2008, no Shockwave plugin was available for Macs either—which is emblematic of the difficulties of maintaining digital scholarship over multiple platforms and in formats that may change over time..." (p75)

2. Warner, Allison Brovey (2007). Assessing the Scholarly Value of Online Texts (PhD dissertation). ProQuest LLC.

Note that this dissertation uses Kairos as a primary case study, and that only a small portion of the dissertation is available online.
Discussion of Kalmbach 2006 "Reading the Archives: Ten Years of Nonlinear (Kairos) History". (p86)

Analysis of "over 230 webtexts" (p86)
"delineates eight distinct categories of hypertext design" including "simple linear structures to more sophisticated multi-media presentations" (p86)
concluded "majority of webtexts are still largely informed by a print paradigm" and "only within the last few years have more sophisticated hypertextual design structures emerged" (p87)
identifies three "eras" of Kairos: (p87)

"Beginnings: Moving Beyond Print" (v1–4), "a time of great diversity and experimentation" (p87)
"Adolescent Exuberance: The Computers and Writing Issues" (v5–7); "great enthusiasm and growth", "pressure to publish huge issues" (p87)
"Coming of Age: New Media and Beyond" (v8–10). "a dramatic increase in the sophistication and an increasingly more confident balance between text, visuals, design, media and navigation".

"Many of Kairos authors have been graduate students, adjuncts, and untenured faculty members, and while they may write their webtexts for colleagues in computers and writing, composition, and technical writing, these texts are also being read and evaluated by colleagues who have likely never published online work. .... [E]ven though one's colleagues may recognize the peer review process Kairos uses and its high regard in the field, they usually lack the background to evaluate webtexts..." (p88)

3. Elmborg, James (2013). "Teaching New Media as a form of writing: explorations in evolving genres"". In Deyrup, Marta; Bloom, Beth (eds.). Successful Strategies for Teaching Undergraduate Research. Scarecrow Press. pp. 67–70. ISBN 978-0-8108-8716-9.

"Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy" has been publishing "web-texts" since its inception in 1996."
"The journal was founded specifically to explore the ways that texts might evolve if freed from the constraints of word processing and the linear essay."
Instructions to authors: "Kairos publishes 'webtexts', which means projects developed with specific attention to the World Wide Web as a publishing medium. We do not suggest an ideal standard; rather we invite each author or collaborative writing team to thik carefully about what unique opportunities the Web offers."

4. Eyman, Douglas (2011). "Value, visibility, virtual teamwork at Kairos". Virtual Communities: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools and Applications. Vol. 1. Information Science Reference. pp. 2591–2599. doi:10.4018/978-1-59904-893-2.ch043.

Note that only a single page of this document is available online. The title indicates that this is not a passing reference.

5. Lamanna, Carrie A. (2008). Disciplining Identities: Feminism, New Media, and 21st Century Research Practices (PhD dissertation). ProQuest LLC. pp. 134–136.

Kairos has a three-tiered review process for its Topoi section (the section containing the feature articles for each issue" (p135)
Tier 1: "webtexts are first reviewed individually by the editors"
Tier 2: "collaboratively reviewed by the whole editorial board"
Tier 3: "one-on-one mentoring by the editors" with authors for successful manuscripts.
Quote from "call for webtexts": "Submissions for Kairos are not blind-reviewed due to technological and media constraints, and moreover because the Kairos board is about collaboration and mentoring, not snooty gatekeeping." (p136–6)
"the idea began when a group of then graduate students were stuck in a car together traveling to a concert. The question raised was what an online journal for those doing computers and writing would look like. This group continued their conversation over a series of months on[sic] order to organize the journal." (p136)
"From its origins, Kairos has emphasized collaboration over hierarchy" (p136)

@Lesser Cartographies: Thanks for these; could you please clarify if they just cite works published in Kairos or if they discuss Kairos itself -- and if so, how. Also, the PhD dissertations are not necessarily reliable sources, as per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. fgnievinski (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Fgnievinski:. I provided the links to google books so you wouldn't have to take my word for it. Rather than summarize I've added my notes from each source to the list of cites above. In both dissertations the sections on Kairos are summaries and discussions of the primary literature, thus making them WP:SECONDARY sources (at least for our purposes here). Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added another source. I think there's enough coverage for general notability and enough historical significance (as supposedly the first journal to publish in webtext form) for WP:NJournals. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Long established journal, been referred to in academic papers for about 20 years. SatansFeminist (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After a long debate with myself, I think we ought to keep this one. The lack of indexing in selective database is a strike against notability, which is usually what we go by when we lack stronger, more direct indication of notability. But I feel that the LoC interview goes a long way towards establishing notability, because why would they have bothered to interview them if they were not worth taking note of? We also have secondary sources that did research on Kairos' impact, and while there seems to be some type of close affiliation between at least some of the researcher and the journal, there's also the fact that there's a historical aspect to the journal in that it pioneered certain webtext techniques. Taken together, I think that this journal at least meets WP:NJOURNALS#C3 and WP:GNG, even if WP:NJOURNALS#C1 is tenuous. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree with Fgnievinski and David Eppstein. --Fadesga (talk) 22:00, 23 February 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.