The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is that the sources available are sufficient to write an appropriate list article on this topic, particularly via the strong arguments given by DGG and Newyorkbrad. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of major cities in U.S. lacking Amtrak service[edit]

List of major cities in U.S. lacking Amtrak service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The sources do not appear to discuss these as a group, failing WP:LISTN. I would not oppose a significant re-working of the article into something akin to List of cities with discontinued Amtrak service, which may be useful, but listing cities who have never had service or even reportedly wanted service is excessive in the absence of strong sourcing discussing these as a group. ~ Rob^Talk 22:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Trivial list, also subjective as to what constitutes a "major city". Dough4872 02:13, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The determination of what is a "major" city is arbitrary; even if it were objective, it would still be an indiscriminate list. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not convincing for its own article, still questionable for solidity. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Inclusion criteria are subjective and the list itself fails WP:LISTN. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I think LISTN can be met: the idea that major US markets are underserved (or not served at all) by intercity rail is a frequent topic in reliable sources and many of the locations in that article are discussed. That being said, I highlighted numerous problems with the article in 2012 and they've gone unaddressed. A paragraph, no more, discussing the notable omissions (Phoenix, Las Vegas, Columbus) should find its way into Amtrak#Routes if this article is deleted. Mackensen (talk) 13:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (hopefully with improvements) per Mackensen. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an indiscriminate and non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. The general topic would be appropriately addressed in a "history of Amtrak" article, but this list fails multiple criteria. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs)
• Delete as trivia. Would List of cities lacking bus stations qualify for inclusion? Probably not, we would say it is trivia... Carrite (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I disagree that this is trivial. The difference between the bus station scenario and this is that Amtrak service is a politically contentious topic that gets substantial attention, especially in the cities near the top of the list where advocates push for service on the basis that their city is one of the biggest currently without service. Random examples: "Amtrak service would put Columbus on map" ("For far too many years, we have been the doughnut hole in America's passenger-rail system. . . . Columbus currently is the largest metropolitan U.S. area without regularly scheduled passenger-rail service."), "Train dreams could help solve Az's transportation nightmare" ("The unwillingness of state leaders to kick in to maintain the northern main line of the Southern Pacific caused Phoenix to become by far the largest city in America with no Amtrak service."); "Councilor pushing rail service: Time is right to begin looking into it, he says." ("Tulsa is the fifth-largest metropolitan area in the United States without passenger rail service, following Las Vegas; Nashville; Columbus, Ohio; and Louisville, Ky."); etc. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • All three of those discuss a single city without Amtrak service. Noting that City X is among the largest cities without Amtrak service is not "significant coverage" needed to establish notability of a group. There's no discussion of the other cities that also lack service, for instance. Additionally, the first is a letter to the editor and the second is an op-ed. Those two sources aren't reliable. ~ Rob^Talk 19:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Arxiloxos has demonstrated that the subject has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, so passing WP:LISTN. Arguments that claim this to be trivia are simply based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Details about which cities should be included or whether "major" is the right word to use in the title are matters for discussion on the talk page, unrelated to whether this should be kept or deleted. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Rob's comment above, the provided sources do not meet LISTN. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 02:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• But here are some sources that do:

• Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 266: Amtrak at Twenty-Five: End of the Line for Taxpayer Subsidies (Table 3 on page 5)
• Welfare for the Rich ("Amtrak doesn’t offer service to Phoenix, Las Vegas, Columbus, Nashville, Louisville, Dayton, Tulsa, or Colorado Springs, even though each of these cities has over 500,000 residents" on page 2)
• End of the Line: The Failure of Amtrak Reform and the Future of America's Passenger Trains (Table 4.1 on page 68)

86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And a few more examples of evidence that the topic of this list is relevant to, and raised in connection with, the continuing political discussions surrounding Amtrak:

• A book, Rails Across Dixie: A History of Passenger Trains in the American South, that uses (and cites) this Wikipedia list for the purpose of supporting the author's (debatable) assertion that Southern cities are disproportionately unserved. [1]
• An advocacy document from the Maricopa Association of Governments that includes a list similar to this one in making an argument for the resumption of train service to Phoenix. [2]
• U.S. Rep. Dina Titus invokes a list of biggest cities without Amtrak in connection with her 2015 proposal for increased federal funding for intercity rail service. [3]

I don't think Wikipedia's overarching policies—indeed, its basic reason for existing as a freely available encyclopedia—are served by removing a well-organized, sourceable set of data that's relevant to a matter of public discourse. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because articles about things/situations that don't exist shouldn't exist either. Should we create a "List of wars the United States has not been involved in" article because of this logic? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• We have plenty of such lists. For example "List of countries without armed forces" is a featured list, and "List of countries without rivers" was kept at AfD. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per my comment above. As a further thought, Amtrak's incorporators had to choose which trains to keep in 1970-1971, knowing that major metropolitan areas would lose service. These decisions were as much political as practical, and led to much discussion and debate in Congress. Several routes (the Lake Shore is one example) were specifically revived to address the loss of service to major cities (in that case Toledo and Cleveland). This is discussed in reliable sources, such as Craig Sanders' Amtrak in the Heartland. Sources exist and LISTN can be met (per Arxiloxos's comments), given proper cleanup and the establishment of reasonable inclusion criteria. Mackensen (talk) 17:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having looked at this article in more detail, I reaffirm my "keep" above. This is an important list as discussions of the future of rail travel in the US frequently focus on whether and to what extent service is or should be provided to major metropolitan area. Unlike other lists that are sometimes proposed for deletion on the grounds that they are assembled via arbitrary criteria, the inclusion criteria here are, or readily can be made, entirely straightforward. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep list definable and notable topic of some discussion. I invite closing admin to ensure they check whether article fulfils notability criteria WRT sources. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addressing definable, how does one define a "major city"? ~ Rob^Talk 02:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most people writing on a topic would use a population cutoff. I am not familiar enough with the topic to suggest a number here, but suspect that somewhere such a number (or numbers) has been suggested. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • One possibility would be to take List of metropolitan areas of the United States, then take 100,000 as the minimum population. That would give you a pool of 394 metropolitan areas to work with. Mackensen (talk) 12:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • List of metropolitan areas of the United States is based on an actual real-world classification, which is good. But 100,000 is entirely arbitrary. The spirit of WP:ARBITRARYCAT seems to apply here; editors should not make articles/categories/anything based on some cutoff or selection criteria that we make up. 100,000 has no basis in any reliable source. ~ Rob^Talk 05:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are very many instances of lists on Wikipedia where reliable sources differ in their cut-off points, as do the sources that I cited above. This simply means that we have to choose a reasonable cut-off from among the options available. If WP:ARBITRARYCAT is to be applied to a list then it needs to be done with a bit of common sense. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is one instance where not is significance , and thee are sources discussing the problem which indicate what cities should be covered; a another approach, there could be a List of Cities which previously hd Amtrak train service -- there would be no doubt which ones to include, though the list would be longer and include some rather small cities. DGG ( talk ) 03:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe both lists should exist; the desirability of creating the "discontinued" list does not detract from the merit of keeping this one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can easily cover both in the same list. This is already done in this article with the notes saying if and when a former service has been discontinued. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I would add that many of these cities might not have had an Amtrak rail service, but did have services operated by Amtrak's predecessors. I think the important thing here is a lack of rail service, not the particular operator that might operate such a service. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted in the nomination, I would support converting this into an article specifically on discontinued service. Alternatively, this could be partially merged to Amtrak as a new section discussing Amtrak's coverage limitations in prose. We could even do both. ~ Rob^Talk 05:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems to me to be a viable subject for an article, given how shocking it is that cities of this size don't have a railway station. As a European I was amazed when I read it. Certainly one of those times when a list is clearly important. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I was particularly amazed by the fact that Amtrak doesn't operate a Chattanooga Choo Choo. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:33, 8 June 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 SNOWing Keep as there's apparently no other ending here (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Godakumbura[edit]

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

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

Non-notable person Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He meets WP:ACADEMIC #6 as head of a major national scientific society, now known as the Royal Asiatic Society of Sri Lanka. His 1955 work Sinhalese Literature has been widely cited by scholars for 60 years. He was the top government official responsible for archaeology. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep whilst there might be a conflict of interest by the creator of this article, the subject is notable. Godakumbura was the first Ceylonese head of the Department of Archeology. He published numerous works on a range of subjects, which are still widely cited by academics. Satisfies WP:ACADEMIC.Dan arndt (talk) 08:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. For those doing various searches, he is usually cited as "C. E. Godakumbura". I am leaning "keep" at the moment. He lived well before the internet era, and GBooks still gives 2,630 hits[4]; the name appears to be unique, so I don't think there are any false positives there. I did find one published obit about him[5] in the Journal of Burma Research Society. Also, there is a short book/booklet[6] published about him. So arguably passes WP:GNG, even if weakly. JSTOR has at least 14 published reviews of his work[7]. Actually, some of these reviews contain interesting semi-biographical details. E.g. this posthumous review[8] by Ernest Bender says, in particular: "The present catalogue -- based on first galley proofs which fortuitously survived the original manuscript destroyed by the ravages of white ants in Sri Lanka -- comprises one hundred ...". Probably one can make a case for passing WP:PROF here. Nsk92 (talk) 12:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: appears to meet qualifications for line of study/research and as per @Nsk92's thoughtful rationale. Quis separabit? 14:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Appears to have been eminent Sri Lankan scholar. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. Head of a major government department. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, obviously. It surprises me that editors who make such disruptive, timewasting, deletion nominations are never warned or sanctioned in the way that those who perform other disruptive edits are. Surely we should treat all forms of disruption in the same way? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per Cullen328. - Variation 25.2 (talk) 19:50, 3 June 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 G3 by JzG. (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 17:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sukuma Ancient Milk Technology[edit]

Sukuma Ancient Milk Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article is not based on reliable sources (or at least, the reliable sources cited do not discuss the supposed topic of the article), and a search does not reveal any that could be used to base an article on this topic on. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. Is it too late to do a speedy delete now that this AFD was already started? I think it would qualify under A11. Obviously invented as a hoax, especially taking into consideration its twin article Sukuma Ancient Salt Technology (also at AFD) which is equally incoherent, except about baking soda instead of milk. Google doesn't come up with anything that seems remotely related to either article. —PermStrump(talk) 04:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC) *Updated —PermStrump(talk) 18:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have nominated Sukuma Calendar, created by the same editor, for speedy deletion, Permstrump, but under G3 as a hoax. I considered A11 for both articles, but it doesn't apply if there is any credible claim of significance. Perhaps there isn't such a claim here - the article is such a mish-mash that it's difficult to tell! Cordless Larry (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I meant that I thought the author invented the idea, as in it's nonexistent. Now that I'm re-reading the descriptions, I think I meant hoax. —PermStrump(talk) 18:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as hoax. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I am not sure this is a hoax and think the editor may well be acting in good faith. That does not change the total lack of valid references so I agree the article does not belong on WP. DeVerm (talk) 14:03, 1 June 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) 23:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pentagon (Bangladeshi band)[edit]

Pentagon (Bangladeshi band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No reliable sources, not enough information about the band why it is notable and dose not fulfill WP:NMUSIC criteria. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 21:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 21:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per WP:A7. This is an article about a band that doesn't indicate one iota of notability. Calidum ¤ 21:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there's some news coverage but still nothing to suggest an above and beyond notable article. SwisterTwister talk 04:13, 4 June 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) 23:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mano Swartz Furs[edit]

Mano Swartz Furs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I sawn that article as promotional and non-noable. Fails WP:GNG. Delete as proposer. KGirlTrucker87 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 20:27, 28 May 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 May 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:46, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, destroy and SALT -- blatant business advertising, Quis separabit? 14:05, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I reviewed this and, examining it closely now finally suggests nothing at all for any applicable notability, searches have found nothing better. The history suggests there are chances and this is why I would not have nominated sooner but there's currently nothing convincing of these improvements. SwisterTwister talk 04:16, 4 June 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. Clear consensus for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sukuma Ancient Salt Technology[edit]

Sukuma Ancient Salt Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article makes unverifiable claims about ancient scientific discoveries. None of the sources actually provide information that is relevant to the claim that inhabitants of Sukumaland discovered a method for extracting Sodium Bicarbonate. Salimfadhley (talk) 20:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this appears to be made up. I raised concerns earlier at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Sukuma Ancient Salt Technology, and I haven't found anything that suggests that this is an appropriate topic for an article since then. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Is this a hoax? The only real reference provided doesn't appear to discuss the subject directly. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's a huge red flag in the simple fact that the editor who created it felt the need to point out that they meant "solar years" instead of "years". There are several other clear indicators that this was written by someone attempting to re-write non-encyclopedic language. However, as bad as they are, those problems could be fixed. What can't be fixed is that I can't find any reliable sources for the claims in this article, not even in the single source cited by it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Or do I mean SNOW? It seems silly to wait out an AFD on this one. I think it would qualify for speedy delete under A11. Obviously invented as a hoax, especially taking into consideration its twin article Sukuma Ancient Milk Technology (also at AFD) which is equally incoherent, except about milk instead of baking soda. Google doesn't come up with anything that seems remotely related to either article. —PermStrump(talk) 04:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC) *Updated —PermStrump(talk) 18:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as a possible hoax, not notable in any way. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Original Research at best and while the reference is interesting to read, it does not cover the article at all. No references means this article doesn't belong on WP. DeVerm (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - Article appears to consist mainly of unverified and dubious claims with no clear explanation. None of this appears to be encyclopaedic material. Looks like a hoax. Drchriswilliams (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nothing convincing of its own separate notable article. SwisterTwister talk 04:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete And use this "ancient salt technology" to salt this article. The article is total bollocks. Plants called "Nyambo" are burned to produce an "invaluable salt" called "Nyambo" (extracted from ashes) which is later termed as Sodium bicarbonate. And they apparently produce a quantity which is exported to India, China, Japan and Asia? Delete this hoax. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge if legitimate into Sodium bicarbonate#History. Aoziwe (talk) 15:14, 4 June 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Co-operative Electrical[edit]

The Co-operative Electrical (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nothing notable I could find online, and typed up to the point of promotional use per WP:NOTADVERTISING. JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The most important content is already in The Co-operative Group as a summary. Cloudbound (talk) 21:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Redirect: The relevant information is already stated elsewhere as a paragraph in The_Co-operative_Group#Current. I am not seeing anything to indicate that a free-standing article on this subsidiary meets WP:CORPDEPTH or is otherwise needed. AllyD (talk) 07:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nothing at all suggesting the needed solid independent notability here. SwisterTwister talk 04:18, 4 June 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) — Music1201 ^talk 05:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Janka Boga[edit]

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

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

My searches have simply found nothing better at all and there's nothing better convincing from the current article so unless Hungarian sources can be found, I'm not seeing anything so far. SwisterTwister talk 20:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Keep I'm still looking at this, but there appears to be a reliable reference on the french wikipedia article. I do not possess the knowledge to evaluate it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC) Change to keep per discussion of this source below. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This is a non-English writer and a pre-internet era writer. Sources will be a challenge to find, but she appears adequately notable in her homeland, which meets GNG. Montanabw^(talk) 09:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow up I do not read Hungarian, but she appears to have a biographic entry here which is the Hungarian Biographical Glossary [9]. Montanabw^(talk) 09:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the Hungarian reference appears reliable. According to the French article it's from the Hungarian Biographical Encyclopedia - while I'm not familiar with the source per se, it appears to support notability. (And while I don't speak Hungarian, the existence of an entry in such a print source dating to 1967 should be enough to go on.) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Montgomery Keillor[edit]

Kenneth Montgomery Keillor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:BLP of a writer, musician and unsuccessful political candidate, with no strong claim of notability under our inclusion criteria for any of those endeavours. The books were all self-published and there's no evidence of substantive coverage about his writing in reliable sources -- the only RS citations present here at all are to coverage of his non-winning campaigns for the mayoralty of his own hometown. While this was kept in a deletion discussion back in 2005, our notability and sourcing rules have been tightened up considerably in the past decade -- and nothing here claims or sources anything that would pass the rules as they stand today. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom The only hits my proquest news search got on Kenneth Montgomery Keillor (using No parentheses) were 2 stories from the Abbotsford News, both routine coverage of a 2005 run for Mayor on the "Freedom Party" ticket. He is listed as losing a legislative race in Freedom Party of British Columbia. This: [10] is the best I can do in my attempt to source his career as a singer-songwriter. It' s just not enough.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as my searches are not finding anything particularly better and there's nothing outstandingly convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 4 June 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) 23:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lom Harsh[edit]

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

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

He is a film director his first film Yeh Hai India is yet to be released all sources are about the same unreleased film.No notable work up to this film WP:TOOSOON Fitindia (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Not To Delete. Hi, royal patialvi music video is live on air on 9x tashan and ptc punjabi channels, and about the film he can check on or google Lomharsh. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.215.145.146 (talk) 07:04, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The above comment by ip address106.215.145.146 has only made edits to Lom Harsh and Yeh Hai India both pages created by the same author.Thank you Fitindia (talk) 08:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:TOOSOON and per WP:NOTPROMOTION. No evidence of notability. Also page is being used for promotion and the original author seems to have a COI here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• For COI, see here --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:04, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nothing at all yet convincing of solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Man Friday (2014 film)[edit]

Man Friday (2014 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I'm not finding any proof that this film was ever released or any information about it having a name change then released. Steel1943 (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I Looked and could only find this film title for a 1976 movieAllaboutjane8181 (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:05, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:05, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• News here for Steel1943 and Lemongirl942 Allaboutjane8181: Actually the film was finally completed and released under yet another name, and a decent article under the released name already exists. . Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey MichaelQSchmidt, I believe you meant Allaboutjane8181 here. ;) Haha, I just sorted the discussion. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oops. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• MichaelQSchmidt Thanks for looking and letting me know! Allaboutjane8181 (talk) 18:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in looking beyond....

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: LohamG for Gold Ranjith Antony Perumbavoor Mohanlal

• Delete per this stub being an earlier wrong title on a now existing topic.. The earlier film name of Man Friday was dropped[11][12] and the project became sourcable as G for Gold,[13][14] BUT with that change Manju Warrior and Prithviraj Sukumaran were dropped from the cast and THAT title shelved in January 2014.[15][16] The NEWS that my searches found was that it came off shelving and was finally created and released in 2015 under the name Loham (a decent article).[17] The fact that it went though name changes might be mentioned in the article about the released film. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as still nothing convincing of notability for an article. SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Loham Delete per User:MichaelQSchmidt. Just add a line to the existing article about the name and cast changes. Meters (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was leaning toward redirect, until I looked at this source and found it says that Man Friday was only "rumored" to be the title and was never actually reported or confirmed. Since this was never confirmed as the original title of Loham, it should be deleted. However someone should take Schmidt's commendable research here and add it to the article Loham. --MelanieN (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Striking my Redirect and changing to Delete based on this. Meters (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. This was a close one, but the Keep voters were more persuasive. MelanieN (talk) 00:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Veterinary Nursing Association[edit]

New Zealand Veterinary Nursing Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

last AfD was no consensus but my own searches find a lack of in depth third party coverage to meet WP:ORG LibStar (talk) 08:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep National body for Vet Nurses in NZ, 1720 results on Google, and they publish their own journal which is published on SciQuest. I would say they qualify for NotableDeathlibrarian (talk)

http://www.sciquest.org.nz/elibrary/edition/7455

refer WP:GOOGLEHITS number of google results doesn't establish notability. LibStar (talk) 10:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Hope you don't mind me adding a wikilink to your nomination text. I suggest this article meets the notability threshold. Schwede66 18:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but merge with Paraveterinary workers in New Zealand. Enough information to meet notability but the article needs a tidy up NealeFamily (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete AND Redirect as this current article is noticeably hinting at promotional and is otherwise simply not convincing of an acceptable. This can be restarted if needed in the future, but a redirect is sufficient enough also. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Paraveterinary workers in New Zealand, which will enhance that article. Source searches are not providing enough significant coverage to qualify a standalone article at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Paraveterinary workers in New Zealand. Quis separabit? 14:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Passes GNG from sources already showing in the footnotes. If there is a merge to be, it should be from the smaller and weaker Paraveterinary workers in New Zealand piece to this one, not vice-versa. But who's gonna actually do the work? Carrite (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not seeing the notability here. For an organization that has been around for fifteen years, I would expect to see more in the way of significant third-party sourcing, but that's not the case here. As for merging to Paraveterinary workers in New Zealand, I have no objection to a merge, but the proposed target seems to be in even worse shape than the instant article. It starts out by telling us that veterinary nurses are not considered "paraveterinary" workers, but then proceeds to talk about them anyway. By the way, I suspect there is an undeclared conflict of interest here -- the article's creator and chief contributor is a single-purpose account named LHarvey, and one of the members of the subject's executive board is a Laura Harvey (as seen here). NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• keep we normally keep the page on the major national association in each profession. DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Neither the Keep nor the Delete !votes were particularly persuasive, and they are numerically balanced. The nomination has been relisted twice already; time for a close. MelanieN (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Global Concern[edit]

Institute of Global Concern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

All I could find in a WP:BEFORE search on the Institute of Global Concern was one minor news mention, one minor book mention and a bunch of web links and Facebook posts saying an event was sponsored by the IGC. Quite simply, fails WP:ORGDEPTH on its own. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - very few sources available, so fails WP:GNG. It is possible, of course, that there is significant coverage in Japanese sources, but they would need to be cited in the article to demonstrate notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It's of course hard to say, but I would assume there are Japanese sources for this. Web site seems to indicate a notable organisation, with lots of publications. I am wondering if there is a entry in the Japo Wikipedia site. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No demonstration of notability given the total absence of third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage. --DAJF (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with Deathlibrarian. The organization is notable. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 03:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• A strong keep. The organization is very notable. There are pages of independent references on the web, several of which I have added to the article.Jzsj (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I would like to have seen the article improved by the accompanying Keep votes but there's nothing including from my searches to actually suggests this can then be notable and improved. Nothing suggestive of independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 27 May 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, noting that the original nominator is now also supporting the keeping of the article. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bull Run Regional Park[edit]

Bull Run Regional Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I think the relevant guideline is WP:GEOFEAT which it does not pass, rather than WP:GEOLAND. The place is legally recognized (by NOVA Parks), but it is not "populated" in the usual meaning of the term (campers do not count). Moreover, I do not think it is a "named natural feature" either - the boundaries of the park are the result of human decision, not geology, for instance.

The history of the place is way below what would be required for "artificial geographical features" under GEOFEAT.

I could not confirm that it "became known for concerts" in the 1970s (and the refs do not mention it). There are listings of the place at tickets.com and the like, but I saw no indication of past concerts. That could be the base of a claim to GNG though. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Selective Merge to Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority, which will improve and expand that article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep we have many parks with pages and this is a large regional park. The average person looking for info about the park is more likely to search the park name and less likely to recognize the park authority. Legacypac (talk) 04:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• MergePark does not pass WP:GEOFEAT as it's not protected on the national level, but rather the regional level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steene01 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In contrast to the opinions above, I think WP:GEOLAND applies because the article's subject comprises both a named natural feature (the patch of land) and an artificial feature (the recreational facilities built upon it). As such, the union set of notability applies to this article. We clearly have descriptions of both natural features and park facilities available in secondary sources like AllTrails and Reserve America (both already cited) and many others from search results, so I think the relevant inclusion threshold has been met. Deryck C. 10:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "natural feature" clause in GEOLAND mentions "mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc." - I see that as mention any large natural formation that was given a name by the local population ("Mount Foo", "River Bar"). A park's boundaries are defined by humans. While there is more than basic info such as GPS coordinates etc. I would argue these are attached to the park (maintained by humans), not the patch of land, so the latter does not meet GEOLAND and we should fall back on GEOFEAT. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'm not going to bother trying to grok geoland vs geofeat. But a 2.5 sq mile public or private park that has annual events of public interest is going to be in the news and is going to be looked for by readers and we therefore have lots of park articles. Wp:gng trumps all other notability guidelines anyhow. --97.32.155.173 (talk) 07:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that WP:GNG is the golden guideline for notability, but where is the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. WP:GEOFEAT is the guideline for "buildings and objects" - artificial manmade structures. Unless the park is made of concrete, it doesn't apply. In any case there's no need to overthink it - there's plenty enough coverage in multiple books on camping, hiking, and so on, found through google books search. It's significant and in-depth enough to write an encyclopedic article from. No doubt there is much more coverage in old newspapers or offline books, since the park opened in 1960. I don't think a merge to Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority would be good, since that article doesn't have information and history on individual parks. -- IamNotU (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Nominator comment - User:Arxiloxos added some good sources via HotBeam. From User:IamNotU's indications, I also found this. So that is a keep for me (but I cannot withdraw with the merge !votes). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:32, 3 June 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. This is a WP:Soft delete. The article may be restored by any administrator upon request. MelanieN (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Thorne[edit]

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

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

vanity COI/SPA page. lacks neutral tone. subject seemingly not notable - fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. Rayman60 (talk) 23:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete only 8 results on Google News for his name, all of which are mentions or another Rich Throne. CerealKillerYum (talk) 03:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as visual effects supremo for films including Fight Club, X Men, X Men2, Planet of the Apes, Shallow Hal, I Robot,Alien v Predator he passes WP:CREATIVE. The article has plenty of references already. I do agree with the nom that the article needs copyediting for neutral POV, but it can be improved. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete instead and Draft if needed, there are several works to his name, but this is still questionable for better article improvements at best. Considering he's only the behind the scenes worker, this is still imaginably questionable for solidity. SwisterTwister talk 21:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Visual effects "supremo" is still not solving the questionability of independent notability for his own article. SwisterTwister talk 05:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article is already well referenced, so his notability has been backed up.The fact that he works behind the camera in a less visible role should not deny him proper consideration for the large body of his work, much of it on very notable, world-popular films. Atlantic306 (talk) 04:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Salman Mohammad Abdullah[edit]

Salman Mohammad Abdullah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Most of the references are not reliable. Most of them are WP:INTERVIEW. No significant work whatsoever. The reference of Ourtimebd does not contain anything about him. CNN ref is not verified by CNN, its an assignment work. Highly promotional article. No reason to keep this article on Wikipedia. Mar11 (talk) 09:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep – Notability established by the 24 References and Notes cited in the article. Most of the reference collected by the Bangladeshi Newspaper and some international newspaper. He has already won an important Bangladeshi award 3rd time in a row for his outstanding contribution in the arena of radio. He is also writer, Actor and News Anchor with the Notability work. — Masum Ibn Musa  ^Conversation 11:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Masum Ibn Musa (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Comment - The article contains 24 references indeed. But almost none of them are reliable. Most of them are regional news. Some are interviews, the ireport article is not international CNN news report, it's written by student of journalism as a practice assignment. References would not pass him WP:N. The article also contained commercial link of Rokomari, some of them were covered with false title. - Mar11 (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sorry Mar11, but could you please clarify the above statement "Most of them are regional news."? WP:N, WP:GNG does not specify that regional news articles cannot be used for notability, indeed some editors have argued for the retention of articles based on sources from local/town and university/college papers, (consensus does, however, appear to point towards more references in these situations). Coolabahapple (talk) 08:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was 1 or 2 regional news which have been removed along with the awards list. Coolabahapple If you can read Bengali, you will understand how lame and unreliable the websites (bijoybarta24,sangbadkonika,prothombarta,banglasongbad24,unitednews24,takkizbd,b24news) included in the article are!! Any Bengali reader will agree with me.

[18] 404

[19] Primary source, he works at Radio Today

[20] No news about him

[21] passing mention

[22] and [23] Mirror of each other. Probably press release. Highly promotional article. It says he has published a new book which will be available at Ekushay Book fair stall -169.

[24] promo article. advertisement of his book. Says the book will be available at stall 266 of Ekushay book fair.

[25] Interview

[26] 404

[27] No news about him

[28] No news about him

[29] passing mention. His name on the list of actors worked in this drama.

Only this two two sources [30] and [31] are from mainstream news sites (Jugantor and Ittefaq). But these are also written like advertisement piece, The authors just praising him in these articles; - Mar11 (talk) 09:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is so funny that Mr. Mar11 you could not found any reliable news about him and you have deleted some important point just like award or another part of the article. You should learn more and more about wikipedia rules. This is not good signed as a Wikipedian. No doubt about here in this article is more reliable with his notable work. What is the meaning No significant work whatsoever and Highly promotional article? — Masum Ibn Musa  ^Conversation 13:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Masum Ibn Musa has clearly put considerable effort into the article, and has a long track record of valuable contributions, so it pains me to disagree, but I'm not seeing convincing evidence of notability. I give the Ittefaq article more weight than the nom does, but the other pieces from independent, reliable media are very brief ([32], [33], [34], [35]) or primary source intereviews (NTV).

There are many references to the book releases, but they are mere publicity announcements, not even capsule reviews, let alone the in-depth reviews by professional book critics that in my experience are necessary to pass WP:AUTHOR. The awards are not notable ones. The first is mentioned in the Ittefaq article, but otherwise they are unreported by serious news organizations.

Direct searches of a dozen mainstream Bangladeshi news sources (both English and Bangla) found nothing more. WP:BASIC is not met. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nothing of this is still any better convincing of solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Here is a source I believe there are many Hindi sources which cover this person @Masum Ibn Musa: if you could give some sources in Hindi it would help. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 23:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It's more likely that sources could be found in Bengali. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This source says that it is not a verified news of CNN. Its like a blog or something like that. - 42.0.7.63 (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep At least one reliable source is better to established article. So this article is better just like the rules. Plz see the article first then comments. Thanks all. ---- David Benzam^Contact 03:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that David Benzam (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

@David Benzam: Would you clarify what you mean by, "At least one reliable source is better to established article"? If there is a source that you feel is in-depth, independent, reliable, and secondary, what source is it? If one such source exists, how does that square with the WP:GNG or WP:BASIC notability guidelines, which call for multiple sources? --Worldbruce (talk) 04:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Notified, as concerned editors, all who have participated in previous deletion discussions on the same topic. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, not notable person. --Kayser Ahmad (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I stand by my previous view, Strong Delete, as He is only a RJ who wrote 1 or 2 books about FM radio. Most of the references seems to be self promoted interviews. Does not pass WP:ENT. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 11:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Per nomination and others. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 14:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This article is nominated for 3rd time in fifteen months. That either means someone badly wants this article. At a first glimpse the article looks like a potentially good one. But with a closer look, it is single editor contributed poorly written Bio. He still doesn't meet WP:ENT, so my original opinion stands. Delete, but don't salt. --nafSadh did say 15:51, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per all that has been said, including failure of WP:GNG, WP:RS, and WP:NPEOPLE, which reads as follows (boldface is my doing):

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.

As Mar11 pointed out neatly above, what appears to be significant coverage (24 references) in reality isn't; we have some promotions, some first-party work, some passing mentions, and only two acceptable third-party sources, which isn't "significant".

If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.

Now, if we were to combine multiple, independent sources, that would be fine, and notability would be proven; however, there doesn't appear to be multiple, independent, third-party sources. All we have are sources that fail WP:RS.

Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.

...which, ultimately, leaves this article unsourced.

In conclusion, all of the evidence presented points towards failure of the general notability guideline; unless numerous third-party sources are presented to show otherwise (something which hasn't been done yet), deletion seems most appropriate. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 18:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Salman is a high profile Radio jocky, actor, writer and also news anchor. Bangladesh Cultural Reports Association (BCRA) Honors Awards for his outstanding contribution in the arena of radio (3 award career).1, 2. He has been working as a radio jocky since 2010 (7 years career).3, 4, 5. He has appeared on multiple notable hit television drama (6 drama since 2010),6, 7 as well as writer he wrote 3 books in 3 years.8, 9 He is a well-known figure in Bangladshi media and should therefore not be removed from Wikipedia. Though comprehensive comments here in delete but wikipedia rules does not support vote, should be logic here. David Benzam^Contact 09:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@David Benzam: You can't !vote more than once. --nafSadh did say 05:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as I wrote in the first AFD, at AfD we tend to delete articles about DJs. This person in particular seems to be run of the mill. My opinion has not been changed; in fact, the discussion above about the minimal coverage and lack of reliable sources merely convinces me that my initial assessment was correct. Bearian (talk) 13:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nominator's comment. - Variation 25.2 (talk) 03:21, 2 June 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) 00:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Onewheel[edit]

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

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

On the list Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody/Articles. Doesn't seem to meet the criteria for notability. TJH2018talk 18:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The topic passes WP:GNG. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the sources found by Northamerica1000. While the article needs to be expanded, there is more than enough coverage to meet notability requirements. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the sources found by NA1k - As noted above it needs expanding however notability's certainly there. –Davey2010^Talk 21:52, 28 May 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. Although she is found not to be notable enough for an article at this time, might there be some other article, perhaps about Nashville or about transgender rights, where she could be mentioned? MelanieN (talk) 00:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marisa Richmond[edit]

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

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

Subject is neither notable per WP:BLP1E nor WP:NPOL. I won't call a politician "low-profile" but we can't base notability on claiming transgenderism. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 14:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 14:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 14:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Neither serving on a municipal committee nor being a delegate to a political party's convention are claims of notability that get a person into Wikipedia in and of themselves — and "first member of a minority group to do this otherwise non-notable thing" isn't an instant notability pass either. She could potentially still earn inclusion if the WP:WEIGHT of sourcing and substance were sitting much more squarely on her role as president of the Tennessee Transgender Political Coalition, but that's also not an automatic inclusion freebie if you're leaning on just two references to carry it. None of this suggests or sources a compelling reason why she's earned an encyclopedia article yet. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have advertised this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Marisa Richmond. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I created the page and feel that Marisa Richmond does reach notability requirements as a trailblazer in the transgender rights movement and has made history more than once. I do not know her well personally but have kept up with her advocacy career. I am disturbed that it is considered for deletion when figures of less notability have been included on Wikipedia. She has been mentioned in the press several times and in books on transgender rights. I am trying to track down more books she has been mentioned in. She has won several notable national awards in the transgender community. I would hope Wikipedia would not attempt to censor transgender history. Consciouswanderer (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The case for notability here is on multiple points but the broader career of being an advocate and being a pioneer in transgender rights including the recent accomplishment of being the first transgender individual to be appointed by a Mayor in Tennessee to a municipal commission/committee/board. Nashville is the state capital and second largest city in the US state of Tennessee as well. There are also several other major mentions in books and articles for Marisa Richmond. An overview of her career in 2008 prior to these recent accomplishmentsvis mentioned in the Wikipedia article is here: https://www.outandaboutnashville.com/story/ttpc-president-awarded-baltimore-black-pride#.V0C8GISGpt. Marisa Richmond has has also been invited to the White House several times for events and has personally been among transgender leaders to meet with President Obama more than once as well as senior Presidential Administration figures. She is on the White House list of transgender leaders to regularly communicate with. As one of the more notable public figures in national US transgender advocacy I feel she reaches the notability level for a Wikipedia article. She is also an academic in this field. US mainstream media has only covered a handful of transgender figures mostly in the Entertainment field on a national level such as Caitlyn Jenner, Laverna Cox etc. This does not mean that others do not exist in the advocacy and academic field or other fields. --Consciouswanderer (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Consciouswanderer: Please do not ascribe to censorship what is really due to beaucracy. Please be advised that name-dropping is a cognitive fault and you haven't made a case based on notablity criteria. Wikipedia includes information about many people regardless of race, gender, socioeconomic status, etc. That the subject does not meet our notability criteria is not an official condemnation of their work nor is it appropriate with your limited experience here to tell us what we should accept. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman: I have had the most problems on Wikipedia so far attempting to make entries on people of color. There are those with less notability included on Wikipedia. Though I understand the standards around living persons are different this is a unique case given the field of transgender advocacy is a field that is reaching national prominence as these issues come to light in the United States as well as globally. The US national media has mostly covered only those transgender individuals in the field of Entertainment or celebrity. Other figures of transgender notability have not been covered as frequently by national media though still have accomplishments within their fields. Consciouswanderer (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Consciouswanderer: It sounds then that your issue is with the media, not with Wikipedia. If journalists and academics write about transgendered persons we will then have the source material to support articles. You can understand then that we can't write articles without sufficient sources. I wrote the articles about Alonzo Davis and Xuemei Chen, both people of color and neither of which is a celebrity or entertainer. I also wrote an article about Sylvia M. Broadbent, a female scientist. None of these articles was ever nominated for deletion because I was careful in finding the source material before I published the article. I'm still working on sandboxes for female historians Shirleene Robinson and Karen Lindsey because I don't yet have the material I need. Let's also remember that "other stuff exists" isn't a fair argument as much content on Wikipedia ought to be deleted. You could certainly ask to have this entry userfied and continue developing what you have before moving the page back into the article namespace. Perhaps this subject just got published too early. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman: She has received mention in several media sources though even if primarily LGBTQ media. The Associated Press has picked up on the story of her appointment by Mayor Megan Barry and it is now an AP Wire story as evidenced by being reported as far away as Miami http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/gay-south-florida/article78798177.html She has also been mentioned in a book by Oxford University Press. Consciouswanderer (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subject is also notable under the LGBT African Americans category. Consciouswanderer (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Consciouswanderer (talk) 20:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Report of subject's appointment to Metro Nashville board has now also been picked up by the Associated Press wire service and is being reported in newspapers in Miami among other places. ^[1]

• Weak keep/possible delete I'm not sure she is notable outside the LGBT community and her advocacy for their interests. However, she may be. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 14:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She is the first transgender person at all to hold public office in Tennessee. I added the relevant news source to the article. Her coverage passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Certainly a respectable person, however the only claim to notability seems to be, as Bearcat pointed out, "she's the first member of a minority group to do this otherwise non-notable thing". Not enough. — JFG ^talk 17:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Reading the references, this also looks like a case of local WP:FAME around Nashville. — JFG ^talk 17:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: fails both WP:BLP1E and WP:NPOL. Quis separabit? 14:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there's still nothing here for any applicable notability, the information about her suggests nothing at all convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Celestial Percussion[edit]

The Celestial Percussion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This book fails the general notability guidelines. There is absolutely no coverage. Google gives 11 hits for "the celestial percussion", of which only two are about this book, and those are both Amazon listings. Largoplazo (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per failure of WP:GNG, WP:NBOOK, and, it seems, violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING. I couldn't locate any third-party sources (or first-party sources, for that matter) indicating notability; no reviews, no synopses, and hardly any promotional sources on top of that. "Absolutely no coverage", indeed. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 17:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't find any evidence of anyone actually writing about this book in independent and reliable sources. There are no results for this either, other than the e-commerce sites selling it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there's still nothing at all for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 4 June 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) 00:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Yoshimoto Nemcoff[edit]

Mark Yoshimoto Nemcoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR. The page's main contributor is a WP:SPA [36]. A Google News search shows 4 results, two are from NY Post and SF Gate. Those two are mere mentions however [37] [38]. There is another story about his comic on Bleeding Cool [39] but the publication's notability is questionable as Bleeding Cool doesn't have its own Wikipedia page but is a subheading for another page. The other news mentions are press releases. CerealKillerYum (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as blatant vanity page by someone close to subject. Quis separabit? 14:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as still all of this shows nothing for any applicable notability and, with that, there's nothing convincing at all. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 4 June 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) SSTflyer 16:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arif Akhundov[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NSPORT. The dude competed in the Olympics but didn't move into the next round. There is only 1 Google News reference for him, which is a table, not an article [40]. CerealKillerYum (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep: Meets WP:NTRACK#1, and thus is presumed notable. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 16:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The top of WP:NTRACK, which is also the top of WP:NSPORT, says "Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." So, therefore, meeting WP:NTRACK #1 doesn't mean that Arif Akhundov should be kept. CerealKillerYum (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Native spelling is "Arif Axundov". His LinkedIn page contains potential claims of other notability against NTRACK, which are not supported by currently available online sources, but which would be (expected to be) supportable by physical sources. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC):[reply]

• How are we supposed to verify that? I don't think those sources would be in English and we can't just take him for his word, that's against WP:V. CerealKillerYum (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Well WP:BEFORE#B6 lists checking native-language sources, so the fact that sources might not in English isn't an issue. Not suggesting that these claims should be incorporated into the article without verifying, just that there are (in addition to his existing Olympics claim) multiple other claims of notability that could be sourced (probably from offline native-language and/or specialist sources). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 07:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:13, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He competed in the olympics. All olympic competitors are deemed notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NTRACK #1 and WP:NOLYMPICS. It is true that athletes meeting WP:NTRACK are merely presumed to be notable. However, previous discussions regarding similar Olympic athletes have revealed Wikipedians' reluctance in rebutting this strong presumption, even if there is a lack of sufficient reliable sources. --Dps04 (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• SNOW Keep and I nearly closed myself as getting to the Olympics is enough for a notable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 4 June 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. czar 18:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Destiny of Ancient Kingdoms[edit]

Destiny of Ancient Kingdoms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:N and WP:V. It appears that there are no reliable, third-party published sources covering this game. All of the existing sources are primary, press releases, or sponsored in some way. I tried searching for sources using the WikiProject Video Games custom Google searches (both reliable and situational) and found "No Results". The current sources are:

1. mygaming.co.za, a sponsored article "[p]resented by Utopia Dream Entertainment Alliance (UDEA)" (the developer)
2. mybroadband.co.za, another sponsored article "[p]resented by Destiny of Ancient Kingdoms"
3. nag.co.za, another sponsored article labelled as "Advertorial"
4. metrotell.co.za, which just links to the mybroadband.co.za article
5. lazygamer.net, a "sponsored" guest article
6. dailyrevshare.com, which links to the lazygamer.net article

Just for completeness, I tried a general Google search and found nothing but the usual press releases, forums, social media, and unreliable sites. Woodroar (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I had tagged this for notability as I could not see anything that looked to me line notability. I am aware that on-line gamers tend to take a "different" view of the real world and its notability criteria, but even on a second review I believe that this fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   16:44, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:13, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I cleaned up the article as best I could, but I'm seeing the same problem as Velella: There are very few sources covering this. Eik Corell (talk) 01:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There is no reliable source covering the title. It is not notable and fails WP:GNG. AdrianGamer (talk) 13:57, 1 June 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 Draftify. See Draft:Kasam Ishq ke. A clear consensus that this subject isn't notable at the moment, but a couple have requested it be preserved as a draft and no one has shown any harm would come from that. Jenks24 (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kasam Ishq ke[edit]

Kasam Ishq ke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Promotional article about a film just released yesterday. I was unable to find any reliable sources when searching for the director, film title in English, and कसम इश्क़ के. Fails WP:GNG. - MrX 15:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sharing my looking beyond the article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Kasam Ishq Ke कसम इश्क़ के A.K. Rai Subhash Nishad Manoj Pandey Jahid Akthar Narendra Sinha Creator's Lab

• Comment: A Brand new article sent to AFD with hours of it being contributed, and as this topic appears improvable using Bhojpuri language sources, I suggest we encourage that it be done rather than toss because of English sourcing issues for a film not written in nor released in English. Perhaps far better and less bitey to simply draftify it for continued work away from article space. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no time limit on sending article to AfD, nor is it bitey. The WP:BURDEN of sourcing belongs to editor who adds the material to the article. Not every film released a day ago is notable. Start up production companies frequently release films to YouTube, Vimeo, etc., and most are not notable.- MrX 14:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • A conjecture of what any film company may or may not do is not the issue, but yes, not all films are notable, and conversely many are that do not (yet) have articles. So? How would an inexperienced newcomer even know what WP:BURDEN is? Or MOS:FILM? Or WP:NF? Or WP:NRVE? or WP:NEXIST? Since I am not able to read this newcomer's mind, I do not know whether or not he/she feels BITTEN. A new contributor could either feel like his efforts are being diminished and he is then chased away... or he/she may feel that it is worth the time and effort to learn and improve contributions and editing skills. Which option best serves the project and its readers? A newcomer's not knowing how to use available (non-English) sources as citations does not mean sources do not exist, nor make contributions automatically non-notable. If something is arguably improvable, which option best serves Wikipedia... demanding it be deleted that same day due to the author's inexperience, or assuming good faith in the efforts and encouraging that it be improved out-of-mainspace? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm happy to debate my views vs. your views about our deletion policy or about how we treat new editors, but this is not really the place to do it. My actions have been well within established guidelines, and widespread practice among new page patrollers. Contrary to what you assert, I did not demand "it be deleted that same day". This is a seven day (or more) process. The only thing that matters here is, is the subject notable as evidenced by substantial coverage in (independent) reliable sources? - MrX 17:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • No debate, specially if the article history has been tampered with and you were not the person who sent it to AFD the same day it was contributed. And since your statement makes it appear you understand the Bhojpuri language, please accept that I was unaware of your linguistic abilities, and in my own inability to read Bhojpuri I felt less inclined to declare these Bhojpuri sources as unsuitable. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify or userfy temporarily and allow a return once sources have been included to make possible notability more obvious. No need for an outright deletion of a sourcable topic simply because it needs work. Volunteers at New Page Patrollers do pretty well for the most part, and their own list of purposes suggests tagging for addressable issues and that a level of courtesy be shown toward newbies. So while there is no rule saying that patrollers cannot take the very newest contributions first, their own guide suggests an assumption of good faith and a collaboration with newbies in addressing problems and so, IMHO, sending this to draft is courteous and will serve the project. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The creator's account has now been blocked, so userfying it won't serve any purpose. Draftify or delete are now the only available choices. --Drm310 (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Drm310: Yes, blocked for a username violation only... a problem with his not having clue. If he returns with an acceptable username and asks, it can be userfied to him. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there's still nothing here convincing for notability despite it's now over a week since the film's release. Delete until someone can find better. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @SwisterTwister: No one is arguing current notability, and you may have missed or ignored that I pointed out Bhojpuri language sources which exist and may be suitable. If we draftify, it takes in out of article space until it gets better sourcing. If deleted for needing work, who would know to even look? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify or Userfy seem a better option than deletion, the content doesn't appear inherently problematic. --joe decker^talk 16:59, 7 June 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. Author has blanked it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fast association of civil engineers[edit]

Fast association of civil engineers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Reason Asadraja93 (talk) 14:58, 28 May 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 May 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:14, 28 May 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. Notability has been established (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 16:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Medopad[edit]

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

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

Promotional article about a non-notable startup. There's a carpet-bomb of references in the article, but looking at about half of them (all I could stomach), they all appear to be obligatory business coverage and/or rehashes of press releases. The first page of search results on Google returns, in order:

1. Their own website
2. This article
3. Facebook
4. Twitter
5. CrunchBase
6. Linkedin
7. A reprint of a press release on an industry website
8. Obligatory coverage of a funding round in a financial publication
9. Metropad employment listings on a jobs board
10. A Wordpress blog

This is not the sort of coverage notable companies get. Related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Vahdat. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete article about company that fails Notability criteria;; existence of the article is promotional. Jytdog (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
  1. Xanthos, Dimitris (August 2015). "Technology: Medopad". The Lancet Oncology. 16 (8). Elsevier: 893. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00150-3. Archived from the original on 2016-05-29. Retrieved 2016-05-29.

     The article notes:

     In a first of its kind, an app (developed by BMI Healthcare and Medopad, London, UK) was built on a specially designed Apple watch to be worn by patients receiving chemotherapy drugs and launched in April, 2015, at the King's College NHS Foundation Trust.

     Drug consumption, side-effects, and symptoms can all be recorded simply by tapping the watch touchscreen, in real time, 24 h a day. The information is transmitted to a hospital-based integrated mobile operating system platform sold by Medopad, potentially stored into electronic records, and carried to mobile devices of physicians.

     ...

     Some hospitals, including East Kent Hospital (Canterbury, UK) and Jinan University Hospital (Jinan, China) already use the Medopad platform, making it simple to test these watches.

  2. Baraniuk, Chris (2014-06-11). "Doctors with iPads could transform hospital care: Modern medicine creates mountains of data – a suite of iPad apps called Medopad aims to integrate it all and place it in the palm of a doctor's hand". New Scientist (2973). Reed Business Information. Archived from the original on 2016-05-29. Retrieved 2016-05-29.

     The article notes:

     With Medopad in place, doctors will be able to refer cases to one another for a second opinion from within the app suite. Photos of a patient’s visible symptoms can be taken using an iPad and shared, for example. Another Medopad app features integration with the Google Glass headset, which allows up to five clinicians to collaborate in real time, take pictures and share them, and access a patient’s records simultaneously. A pathology app can even do some analytical work for doctors, with abnormal blood-test results flagged automatically.

     ...

     Others worry that Medopad’s impact will not be of universal benefit. Carl Reynolds, CEO of Open Health Care UK, would prefer it if more software developers were commissioned to work with hospital data. That would mean that apps viewable on multiple devices could be created and that hospitals wouldn’t have to buy into a single platform. Medopad will cost about £50 to £90 per month per user for a hospital to license.

  3. Allessie, David (2015-05-28). "A HealthTech unicorn in the making: How is Medopad doing now?". KPMG. Archived from the original on 2016-05-29. Retrieved 2016-05-29.

     The article notes:

     One of the most outstanding healthcare startups on the HealthTech/IoT marketplace of the New Horizons 2014 event was Medopad. Medopad allows hospitals, pharmaceuticals and insurance companies to pool their patient data into a single platform so it becomes available to clinicians on apps and mobile devices in real-time. With their headquarters in London, the company was recently valued at 75+ million dollars. I spoke to Dan Vàhdat, CTO of Medopad, on their recent growth and developments.

     Since the New Horizons event last November things really took off for Medopad. With some major accomplishments in the last six months, there is enough to celebrate for Dan and CEO Dr. Rich Khatib. Though they operate in a market which is relatively hard for startups to get sufficient traction, Medopad managed to realize the following key milestones in the last months:

  4. Anderson, Elizabeth (2014-12-14). "App for doctors Medopad valued at £50m in latest funding deal: Metro Bank backer Lord Howard Flight has become the latest investor to back Medopad, which is making waves in the NHS". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2016-05-29. Retrieved 2016-05-29.

     The article notes:

     London-based Medopad was founded in 2011 by Dr Rich Khatib and Dan Vahdat, engineers who both had experience of developing clinical technology applications.

     Medopad works by collecting all data from hospital databases and collating them into a central source, which doctors can quickly scan from an iPad.

     ...

     The company is a supplier to both the NHS and private healthcare provider BMI Healthcare.

     It also has offices in the US, Germany and Dubai, as the firm looks to target new markets.

  5. Ellis, Marie (2016-02-12). "How can health hack into the Internet of Things?". Medical News Today. Archived from the original on 2016-05-29. Retrieved 2016-05-29.

     The article notes:

     Another company presenting at the Digital Health Innovation Lab was Medopad, which is a mobile health platform that aims to deliver clinical information directly to doctors, wirelessly.

     With Medopad, a doctor can access patient records, images and lab results on a tablet, rather than having to physically go to the lab or comb through a patient's physical file. What this means is that the doctor can spend more time with the patient, rather than filling out forms and ticking boxes.

     Essentially, it enables the physician to access all the data he or she needs immediately, saving time and reducing risks of making the wrong decision based on an incomplete view of the patient's data.

     The company also has a patient monitoring solution, which connects patient devices - such as the Apple Watch, a self-monitoring watch that collects data on the daily activity of the wearer - with their clinical teams.

  6. Charara, Sophie (2015-05-14). "Meet the cancer fighting Apple Watch app - the future of digital health is now: Medopad's Apple Watch app is aiming big". Wareable. Archived from the original on 2016-05-29. Retrieved 2016-05-29.

     The article notes:

     Medopad is a British healthcare company which has been building apps for doctors since the launch of the iPad. Now with the Apple Watch, it is looking to really improve patients' lives and empower them to get involved in their treatment with tech's latest toy.

     ...

     As for the future, Medopad is looking to roll out the trial to other hospitals. Khatib's goal is for all the hospitals in London to be on the scheme and there are plans to work with private hospitals in other countries such as China.

  7. Culpan, Daniel (2015-04-24). "WIRED Health 2015 Bupa Startup Stage: the pitch sessions". Wired. Archived from the original on 2016-05-29. Retrieved 2016-05-29.

     The article notes:

     Medopad

     "We’re facing an ageing population, chronic disease and the rising cost of healthcare," says Rich Khatib, CEO of mobile healthcare platform Medopad. "With that comes more data than ever before -- and this is where mobile health comes in to deliver better care and save money." Medopad enables care providers to access more than 50 million primary care records, check treatment plans and view lab results. It brings vital patient data to doctors and guarantees that all information is encrypted. Medopad was voted the Best Healthcare App 2014 by MEDICA. "It’s our vision and dream to be the holy grail of healthcare," Khatib says.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Medopad to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 04:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nothing here but corporate PR. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment: I looked at the current version of the article and do not see any promotional wording. The article is neutrally written and contains citations to the peer-reviewed journal The Lancet Oncology and the magazine the New Scientist that both discuss Medopad in detail. I have found several more reliable sources that I've listed above.

  This is not the sort of coverage notable companies get – based on the sources I've listed here, I cannot agree with this statement.

  existence of the article is promotional – how is the article's mere existence promotional? I've reviewed the article and don't find it promotional. But if there is anything promotional currently in the article, please explain so I can rectify the issue.

  Nothing here but corporate PR. – I think it's very difficult for "corporate PR" to get into the peer-reviewed journal The Lancet Oncology or the magazine the New Scientist. The New Scientist has negative material about Medopad so is not "corporate PR":

  Others worry that Medopad’s impact will not be of universal benefit. Carl Reynolds, CEO of Open Health Care UK, would prefer it if more software developers were commissioned to work with hospital data. That would mean that apps viewable on multiple devices could be created and that hospitals wouldn’t have to buy into a single platform. Medopad will cost about £50 to £90 per month per user for a hospital to license.

  Cunard (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there have been clear COI issues with this article in the past, but it has been cleaned up and could be expanded using the sources identified by Cunard, which clearly demonstrate notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I looked at both the article itself and also the listed sources here with none of it actually being convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 21:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm struggling to understand that sentence, SwisterTwister. Are you arguing that the sources listed above do not establish the topic's notability? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The article would benefit from some copy editing, but the company meets WP:CORPDEPTH. See source examples below, which are not "corporate PR". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:42, 2 June 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. J04n(talk page) 16:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bookitbee[edit]

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

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

All sources are PR or SPS. No coverage in reliable sources sufficiant to pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG Jbh^Talk 14:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Update Based on sources presented by Northamerica1000 this nomination should now be seen as neither keep nor delete. I do not think the material is sufficient to pass ORGDEPTH but there is an argument to be made for passing GNG. Jbh^Talk 13:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 14:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nothing at all convincing for solid notability and this should've been PRODed had it been better reviewed. I know I would've tagged it as such. SwisterTwister talk 23:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: You are right. I was checking a bunch of reviews by a new NPPer I came across and screwed up myself. duh. Jbh^Talk 00:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Below are two sources that provide significant coverage. Additionally, the third listed source provides three paragraphs about the company. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Northamerica1000: thanks for noting those sources however, two of those stories are likely placed PR pieces. KentOnline has a link Submit a story so I am disinclined to consider it RS. A single piece in The Telegraph is insufficient to satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH. Jbh^Talk 20:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jbhunley: The KentOnline articles are both bylined articles written by a staff writer who is employed by the source; they are not user-submitted content. Many news sources provide "submit a story" types of pages, but this does not negate the reliability of news articles authored by publication staff. For example, see CNN's feedback page, where people can submit story ideas and news tips. Would this then disqualify all CNN articles and television news reports? Certainly not. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, my error, they had a PR'y whiff to them and I assumed from there. I am still not thrilled about the depth of coverage and that two of three articles are by the same reporter. Another article or two, particularly demonstrating coverage outside of five months in 2014 would make me feel better. At best I can say I am neutral on their inclusion and I will so note under my nomination statement. Jbh^Talk 13:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets WP:GNG, although on a weaker level. Some source examples are listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The sources found by Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) in The Kent and Sussex Courier and KM Group provide significant coverage of the subject, allowing it to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 05:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The sources which Northamerica1000 has brought forward (The Telegraph, KM Group etc.) are beyond all doubt reliable, and cover the organization reasonably in-depth. I'm convinced that this article meets the requirements set out at WP:GNG. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 08:12, 6 June 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) 01:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bill gates harvard commencement speech 2007[edit]

Bill gates harvard commencement speech 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Bill Gates has delivered many speeches over the years. There is no reason to think this particular speech of his is sufficiently noteworthy to deserve an article to itself. Contested PROD. SJK (talk) 11:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing about this speech justifies it having its own article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Here a couple sources that single speech out as exceptional: [41], [42]. ~Kvng (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Commencement speeches by well-known figures usually generate routine coverage, but there's no evidence this is anything more than that. Smartyllama (talk) 16:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 12:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I had no idea we even had articles on speeches .... Anyway no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 12:44, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be glib, but I couldn't resist. Here are some articles on speeches: I Have a Dream, Gettysburg Address, We shall fight on the beaches, This was their finest hour, etc. Granted, these have historical import, and are not commencement addresses. MisterRandomized (talk) 08:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the vast majority of speeches are insufficiently notable for a standalone article. That is true even for highly notable figures like Abraham Lincoln or Winston Churchill. How many speeches did Lincoln or Churchill each deliver over their respective careers? Many dozens, probably hundreds. How many of those are notable enough for a standalone article? A handful at best. So, even when spoken by especially notable persons, the vast majority of speeches are not notable enough for a standalone article. That suggests the notability bar for speeches is quite high – and a handful of sources mentioning this speech is not enough to bring it over the bar. Also, I think this speech was given less than ten years ago; it is too early to say whether it has lasting historical significance. Churchill's and Lincoln's speeches are old enough now that we can answer that question. For this speech, come back in a few decades and ask the question again then. SJK (talk) 09:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree fails WP:GNG even though there is some coverage.EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 13:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG simply requires significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. You acknowledge coverage but claim it fails WP:GNG. What is it about the coverage that makes it fail in your opinion? ~Kvng (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The NPR mention is insubstantial, and the "Right Attitudes" is some guy's blog and lacks editorial oversight. The other mentions I found were also bloggers or WP:ROUTINE coverage simply noting the existence of said speech. I'm sure he is a great guy, he appears to be a philanthropist. MisterRandomized (talk) 08:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 3 June 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) 01:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Defense Devil[edit]

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

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

Despite the last AFD resulting as a keep, I believe there is no longer any justification in this article's notability. There were various sources brought up in the AFD last time which do not seem to be applicable, or were just not looked into deep enough at the time. For instance, the Issue #184 of the French Animeland magazine shows that the series received coverage in that issue, but it doesn't show what the coverage entailed, and there's no way to verify the contents of the issue. The next 5 links were for "web reviews", but when I went to the archived links, they didn't reveal any reviews. The next two links were from the "French manganews website", but you can see that these were user-submitted reviews, the first written by "Koiwai" and the second one by "Shaedhen", neither of whom seem to be affiliated with the website as part of an editorial staff or something like that. So then we get to the last link from a German animanga website, but even if this one review is notable, it alone certainly doesn't satisfy the "significant coverage" stipulated by WP:GNG, and by extension, WP:BK. 十八 05:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --十八 05:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. --十八 05:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep: Fairly established Manga title, published by Shonen jump, Japans largest Manga publisher. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was serialized in Weekly Shōnen Sunday, actually. And just because it was in the magazine, doesn't mean it's independently notable.--十八 09:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While you're right that the Animeland web reviews don't seem to exist, the magazine review clearly exists (verified because it's on the official website) and would constitute some form of coverage considering that it was in a print magazine. (It's listed in the general "magazine" section along with interviews and other columns, so definitely not minor) The MangaNews reviewer names say "MN Team" on them and if you go on their profiles say "editor and columnist" and "MN columnist", so these are staff reviews. Manga Sanctuary contains several staff reviews. Planete BD has mini reviews. Splash Comics also has reviews. This should be enough to satisfy notability and all sources mentioned are considered reliable by the Anime and manga WikiProject's consensus. Lastly, just a sidenote (not targeted towards you personally Juhachi) that this project as a whole needs to start considering foreign licensing as an indicator of notability; when we see a series has been licensed in North America we usually consider it as notable because it has the heft of actual translation and publication behind it and resulting reviews, but because it's published in a foreign country who's language we can't read, we somehow consider it different even though the markets for anime and manga there are just as large, if bigger. (There's certainly an implicit anglophone bias) The fact that it was licensed in three different countries alone should be enough for notability. Of course AFD isn't a place to discuss policy, but I still wanted to bring this up. Opencooper (talk) 12:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what you are suggesting was at one time part of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Anime- and manga-related articles, with that page stating that a manga series should be considered notable if it had been licensed in at least two countries outside Japan. However, that was removed from the page when it was pointed out that a Wikiproject's guidelines can't really overrule the notability guidelines. I do think we are overly reliant on English-language sources for anime and manga articles, but I'm not sure there would be support for just giving works a pass if they have been licensed in several countries. Calathan (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the illuminating response Calathan. That explains a lot. You're right that a WikiProject can't really trump the actual notability guidelines. Still I'd hope that it could serve as a hint that the series could have coverage in non-English sources. I guess we just have to try to be more vigilant at AfD for that possibility. (Even here I wouldn't have thought to search for non-English coverage if the nominator hadn't brought it up from the previous discussion) Opencooper (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Opencooper. The French language sources are written by staff writers, and the French manga market is larger than the NA-one, so Opencooper's point about not discounting foreign language sources is especially correct in this case. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 08:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there are a variety of reviews in French and German. --211.30.17.74 (talk) 19:42, 28 May 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) 01:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Bharali[edit]

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

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

He exists, he works in the entertainment industry and doing fine, but I couldn't establish that he meets WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability for almost 8 years; hopefully we can now get this resolved. Boleyn (talk) 07:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 12:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 12:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Current claim of notability is only as director of Lookalike/Bolly Double. While that has somewhat of a claim of notability with the festival awards and DNA, Sun and Star articles, it does not meet WP:NFILM. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 17:36, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there's nothing at all here for any actual independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:22, 30 May 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 Four Postmen. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 16:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Kaminsky[edit]

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

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