The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mimi Kirkland[edit]

Mimi Kirkland (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)

Child actress that only gets the most passing mentions in the usual places (e.g. Variety, THR, EW, Deadline, LA Times) – she receives no in-depth coverage that I can see. Certainly fails WP:GNG, and likely fails WP:NACTOR. At best, a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

•  Note: Previous AfD discussion in 2012 came to the conclusion of delete, and the sourcing in the current article is basically non-existent, so this may even qualify for "speedy delete"(?). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Page qualifies for BLP PROD because it is completely unsourced. Regardless, subject is only mentioned in passing in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 02:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and source: The previous AfD was FOUR years ago... she's still acting, so I think, if sourcing can be improved, she meets NACTOR. Montanabw^(talk) 05:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • [sigh...] Did you read the nominating statement?! – I checked the usual places for RS before bringing this here, and all there were were "passing mentions", at best. She simply hasn't gotten a significant enough role at this point to have generated "notable" press coverage. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: aside from the fact that the sole reference is IMDb, she is a very young child actress whose career consists of recurring roles on two consecutive relatively little-known TV series beginning 2014 (per IMDb) and one credit a year earlier. Way TOO SOON. This article has stage mother written all over it. Quis separabit? 20:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A TV show on the Disney channel is a pretty big deal for a child actor. While I agree that the username of the article's primary editor does raise a COI concern, we need to assess the article itself on its merits. Montanabw^(talk) 18:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • And the "merits" are a lack of significant, independent coverage. IOW, WP:TOOSOON. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We need a lot more than IMDB to keep an article on a child of 12.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Redirect only if needed instead as the only longest work is 22 episodes and there's nothing convincing at all from there. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 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 keep. There's pretty good consensus here that the topic is worthy of inclusion, but the particular article we have here now, needs a lot of work, possibly to the extent of WP:TNT. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Film in Kansas City[edit]

Film in Kansas City (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)

Seems to have a big COI, written in a promotional tone... TJH2018talk 22:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Given what comes up from a Google News search alone, the sources exist for an article with this title. But this isn't the article--the unsourced and promotional content can be deleted, and a fresh start needs to be made. There's no good original version to return to [1]. As such, this almost appears to qualify for speedy deletion as promotional from the beginning, more than a decade ago. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The nominator may well be right about the COI, but we see content from a range of editors over many years -- some of it just driven by hometown boosterism. A lot of work has gone into this. And while there's a lot of unreferenced and possibly content, as noted, I'm sympathetic to the notion that Kansas City is or was an important culture center. I've added it to Category:Cinema by city. My inclination would be to WP:PRESERVE and tag for improvement -- or just improve, now. There's too much encyclopedic content to go in the Film Community section of the city's article. Despite whatever faults, editors have worked on this since 2005 to get it to where it is a well-written, if not well-referenced, article. I believe its deletion would be a net loss. Finally, let me point out to the nominator that COI and tone issues are not in themselves reasons to delete, per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Keep and preferably rename to Cinema of Kansas City. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename if needed especially if this can be improved. SwisterTwister talk 04:32, 15 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 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Selective merge to Kansas City metropolitan area. The content is promotional and mostly unsourced, but I could probably source some of it, then move it to the main article, where it belongs. What makes Kansas City so special that its film industry should get an independent article full of unsourced promotion? If we were talking about New York or Vancouver, then I could at least understand the argument that it should have its own independent article. But if a dozen films get shot in some random city, does it automatically qualify for its own "Film in X" or "Cinema of X" article? I don't think it should, at least until these topics overwhelm the main article with sourced content. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep The article itself is terrible, but the bones are there and even just based on a quick search I'd say the subject appears to be notable enough for a standalone article. With proper sourcing and a rewrite, this should be fine. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 15:26, 31 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. J04n(talk page) 23:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Harrison Mercer[edit]

Herbert Harrison Mercer (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)

With the Portuguese Wiki containing nothing better and this article also, my searches have found nothing better than these Books links and therefore still questionable for WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG (with Tibagi not seeming convincing for its mayor to be WP:POLITICIAN and certainly nothing merge-material). SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now The article suggests some notability. It seems he was some sort of regional judge. It also seems he was involved in the creation of the Flag of Brazil. We need people fluent in Portuguese to conduct further searches. He was the founding Mayor of an area, the precedent seems to be a keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Christie AusLondonder (talk) 08:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That precedent would be relevant if it could be shown that Mercer had an editorial obituary (not a family-written death notice) in a major national/regional newspaper of the stature of The New York Times, but we have no evidence of that. Walter Christie was kept on the basis of available sources, not because he helped found a town with a current population of about 20,000. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I note that Tibagi has a current population of about 20,000, so being mayor wouldn't be enough on its own to pass WP:POLITICIAN. I'm not quite sure that I understand the bit in the article about the flag of Brazil - if he really did design it then maybe he is notable. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Absolutely nothing is verified. In particular, the claim that he was involved in the creation of the flag of the Republic of Brazil is contradicted by our article Flag of Brazil. --MelanieN (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree that the article in its current state is very poor, but the subject seems to be notable to me. He is one of the founding settlers in the town of Tibagi and the name Mercer is all over the place in the region: including the name of the historical museum in town, a major road (named specifically for him), and the current mayor. The article should be cleaned up and verified, but kept. giso6150 (talk) 13:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• (after edit conflict with Fosse8 below) Do you have any reliable sources to support that? I note that the Portuguese Wikipedia article on Tibagi has a pretty extensive history section but makes no mention of Herbert Harrison Mercer, and that the museum is named after Edmundo Mercer Jr., not Herbert. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No verification, no sources suggesting notability, and the bit about the flag is a wonky translation of the original Portuguese - he didn't design the flag of Brazil, he *made* a Brazil flag for the festivities. Unless someone can find good sources explaining why this obscure 19th Century Brazilian regional functionary should have an article, I'd say get rid of this. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 15:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for clearing up the flag issue. Notability looks less likely now. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep' He is certainly listed as Mayor in the História de Tibagi, published by the city/town of Tibagi, Prefeitura Municipal de Tibagi, in 1934, p. 151. Only part of the section is visible to me online. He has a page in Wikipedia in Portuguese. There is a Herbert Mercer Street in Tibagi, map [2]. Tibagi is a tourism destination (rafting, hiking) and I presume that there is some tourist interest in the Anglo origins of the town founders. I think keep and hope for further sourcing, at per WP:PRESERVE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The only thing that is reliably sourced is that Mercer was a mayor of a small town, way below the size needed to pass WP:POLITICIAN on that count, and I can't find any reliable sources that say any more than that. I don't know where the idea comes from that he was one of the founders of Tibagi, because the article clearly states that it had already become a forum town (I guess that something has been lost in translation here and "market town" is meant, but, anyway, it was a town) before he settled there, and that he became the twelfth mayor, not the first. It is quite normal for streets to be named after local dignitories, so that doesn't create notability, and I'm sure that it was also perfectly normal for European immigrants to become mayors in 19th century South America.86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Poorly sourced, no better sources seem to exist - there is a brief mention on a Tibagi site of his role (along with several other people) when the Republic was proclaimed, but other Google results appear to be either blogs, or Wiki scrapes, or to relate to his descendants. No sign of notability. Narky Blert (talk) 12:00, 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 delete. Any redirect is up to editors.  Sandstein  11:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where's S-Scared?[edit]

Where's S-Scared? (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)

false Digifan23 (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete bad copy-paste job from http://bigidea.wikia.com/wiki/Where's_God_When_I'm_S-Scared%3F. They are CC-BY-SA so it may not be a copyright violation after I listed them as the only reference but this is not suited as a Wikipedia article. The real episode title Where's God When I'm S-Scared? already redirects to List of VeggieTales videos#Where's God When I'm S-Scared? (1993). Where's S-Scared? would be an implausible redirect. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect seems adequate after removing the copied information. Meatsgains (talk) 02:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as implausible redirect. There may be enough independent RS coverage--in fact, I strongly suspect there is--to turn the redirect back into a stndalone article, but this isn't the way to start that. Jclemens (talk) 06:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Nothing to indicate stand-alone notability; highly unlikely re-direct. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article has since been renamed "Where's God When I S-Scared?" and now "Where's God When I S-Scared?". The correct title, "Where's God When I S-Scared?", was |redirected to List of VeggieTales videos after discussion at Talk:List of VeggieTales Videos. For some reason that I can't quite figure out, the "Talk" link at List of VeggieTales videos goes to the talk page for the article we are discussing here. I think it has something to do with the italics in the title. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of VeggieTales videos was a redirect as a result of confusing page moves. It is now a real talk page again. It was unrelated to the italics which are made by DISPLAYTITLE without affecting the real page name. The talk page could also get a DISPLAYTITLE to make italics but this is independent of the article and we usually don't do it for talk pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect the correct episode name and plausible variants to List of VeggieTales videos, Delete Where's S-Scared? and any other implausible redirects. This has now been redirected yet again, this time to the grammatically incorrect Wheres God When I'm S-Scared? (missing the apostrophe). I strongly suspect this is a sock of User:Wattsj528. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wattsj528. There will be quite a lot of stuff to undo when the SPI ends. Meters (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Where's God When I'm S-Scared?! was just created. Also see Dave & the Giant Pickle and Rack, Shack and Benny (episode)  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  22:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a mess. I was waiting for someone to bock the latest sock before undoing everything. Meters (talk) 22:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; apparent waste of time to make this a redirect, although there will have to be an extensive clean-up after this user(s). Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:RyanSunshine is now blocked, but for copyvio rather than as a sock, which still leaves us with a mess. I have suggested that the user still be tagged as a sock to make this easier. Meters (talk) 01:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where's S-Scared? is up for a valid speedy R3 (implausible typo). I'll add G5 since User:RyanSunshine is now tagged as a sock. Meters (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The actual show was called Where's God When I'm S-Scared? per List of VeggieTales videos#Where.27s God When I.27m S-Scared.3F .281993.29 and the source cited there. Note that there is an apostrophe in "Where's", it's "I'm" not "I", and the title ends with "?" not "?!"When I checked earlier today we had Where's S-Scared? redirected to Where's God When I S-Scared?, which in turn redirects to Wheres God When I'm S-Scared?. Where's God When I'm Scared? also redirects to Wheres God When I'm S-Scared?. Where's God When I'm S-Scared?! was another copy of the article but has now been redirected to List of VeggieTales videos#Where.27s God When I.27m S-Scared.3F .281993.29 by User:Nikkimaria. None of htese redirects are the correc title. The correct title, Where's God When I'm S-Scared?, was redirected to the main series page one year ago by User:SummerPhD and again about six weeks ago by User:Edward321 after the master restored the article. I may have missed some of the combinations of missing words, missing apostrophes, and added punctuation.
  This is not the first time a sock of the user has created a confusing mess of redirects and renamings in an apparent attempt to keep his article split after it was taken to AFD.
  I suggest a blanket deletion of all of the sock's redirects (leaving SummerPhD's correct redirect Where's God When I'm S-Scared?) to ensure that all of the copyvio material is gone, followed by recreation of redirect Where's God When I'm Scared? as a plausible typo. Meters (talk) 22:40, 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 Draftify. Consensus shows that this should be sent to draftspace so the creator can continue to work on it. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny's Journeys[edit]

Jenny's Journeys (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)

Seemingly WP:NN video game that fails WP:GNG. The only references to this product I've been able to find are passing mentions and/or catalog listings. Toddst1 (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I think these points are worth noting:.--Coin945 (talk) 09:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. There are currently 10 references being used, and two external links, all third party and reliable - this to me establishes notability.
2. One of the external links (What's the call on CALL? - St. Andrew's University) mentions the phrase "Jenny's Journeys" 10 times, and discusses it quite extensively.
3. Many of the 12 reference/external links in the article could only be accessed via a "snippet view", which means i could only get a fraction of the juicy into those particular sources contained.
4. The game is from 1984, which in video gaming's case means even if sources exist it is very hard to easily locate them due to the lack of preservation of gaming journalism from the 70s-00s online. (Even the WaybackMachine can only do so much). So a lack of current sources doesn't equal a lack of potential sources.

• Comment - Is there anywhere to redirect/merge? Or maybe send it to draftspace? Sources may be there, but its extremely poorly written, contain little content and no flow between ideas. It doesn't really look like its ready for public viewing... Sergecross73 msg me 19:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Send to draftspace. "Books.google.com.au" is not a publisher and MobyGames is not reliable. Send the article through AfC when it's cleaned up. Re: snippet view—burden is on the adding editor to prove that the ref goes into any detail so if snippet view is all you have, there's no proof there's anything more at the source. czar 18:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Even though the information in certain book sources can't be seen in the "snippet" views, the information can clearly be seen in the "GoogleBooks search page. So it can be proved that the info is really there. TBH I don't think this article is that bad. It has all the relevant sections, no copyvio, written adequately. If taken to draftspace, chances are that will be its permanent purgatory. Whereas here, it can flourish in the Wikipedia ecosystem of collective important and support. It's already been edited by 10 users and as a result is already a huge improvement over that first edit.--Coin945 (talk) 02:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That a mention exists, in no way demonstrates "significant coverage" to satisfy GNG. Toddst1 (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the game actually receives more than just a mention in many of the sources. The only problem is that my view is restricted to the snippet. I would infer from what I *can* see in the GoogleBooks Search preview that the game is discussed in detail and not just fleetingly referred to. However, it is ultimately the decision of the commentators on this page, and I 100% trust their decision.--15:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Send to draftspace. I agree with czar to send it to draftspace.--DThomsen8 (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and then Draft if needed as I have found nothing better too and this would need archives attention, delete at best for the time being. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

United Progressive Party (USA)[edit]

United Progressive Party (USA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article's subject only covered by one source, fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 21:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 21:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 21:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete basically per nom: the only thing I can find that looks at all like coverage in a third party reliable source is this, which doesn't look very significant to me. Many of the citations in the article are to Facebook, political campaigning websites or to news articles that don't mention the subject of the article, these won't help for establishing notability. If this organisation becomes more widely known or achieves more political successes then it may be more appropriate to create an article on it then. Hut 8.5 21:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per norm. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 04:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per above. Neutrality^talk 14:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Hut 8.5's research not finding evidence of notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I favor the lowest of all possible barriers to inclusion of pieces on political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections. That said, this for me still lies in the realm of Facebook phantasy organization rather than a living, breathing organization — at which point I would immediately opine for inclusion. Delete for now per WP:CRYSTAL, a NOTYET sort of situation. Userfy to the creator if so desired. Carrite (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete perhaps it's just WP:TOOSOON. No prejudice against re-creating after this Party wins an election, or garners sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it's only best known currently to Bernie and there's nothing else to suggest, beyond the coverage and information, that it can currently be its own article. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 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. Speedied as a G4 of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deniz Kiziloz. Favonian (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deniz Toprak Kiziloz[edit]

Deniz Toprak Kiziloz (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. Primary claim to notability is the intention to buy a couple of football clubs, but no actual purchase appears to have happened, so there is no notability from ownership of those clubs. Second claim towards notability is chairmanship of non-notable gambling site. Contested proposed deletion.

There seems to be some attempts by the original author to inflate the notability/link depth of the subject by creating other articles with questionable notability:

• Cigar Smoking Celebrities (AfD)
• List of Turkish Business People in Bulgaria (AfD)
• List of the Worlds Casino Entrepreneurs (AfD)
• List of Famous Turks in Switzerland
• List of people from Malatya (which I redirected to Malatya as it was a mess before)

-- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable. I was willing to consider whether his intention to buy the football club might have conferred some notability (via media reports), but the article doesn't tell us anything about it. More to the point, the article on the football club doesn't mention the subject at all, so I'm assuming that any publicity that was generated was short-lived. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:46, 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. J04n(talk page) 00:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Longridge Town F.C.[edit]

Longridge Town F.C. (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)

Football club that fails the accepted notability criteria of English clubs (having played in the FA Cup, FA Trophy or FA Vase, or at level 10 or above). Prod was removed without explanation and the false claim that the club has played in the FA Vase added afterwards, presumably to try and prevent deletion (see the 1982–83 FA Vase results – supposedly the season in which the club reached the first round – here. Number 57 20:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The FA Vase result is clearly one that can be attributed to one of the teams that amalgamated to form this club in 1996 making this club non notable Seasider91 (talk) 22:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Seasider91: It's not even that – the current club was formed by a merger of Longridge United and Longridge St. Wilfred’s, but neither of those clubs played in the FA Vase either. It's completely fictitious as far as I can see. Number 57 07:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there's still questionability that this currently can be established as independently notable regardless of any apparent past winnings and such, delete until something better substantial is available. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 14:11, 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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wahab El Yahiz[edit]

Wahab El Yahiz (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 can't find any sources for this person or for a "Fishan dynasty". The editor who created this article has their own idiosyncratic spellings (see Talk:Karab El Watar but I can't find one for this person. I tried and took advice but I only see one source for that spelling, and no evidence that was this person. Doug Weller talk 20:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The source where "Fishan dynasty" is mentioned could be found here.^[1] From ancient Sabaic language 𐩱𐩡 means the ancient deity El who was worshiped in Ancient Yemen, the suggestion 'il does not mean anything !!

<personal attack removed>User:Ecoboy90 talk 22:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Okay, I found the same thing as the nom. Either a hoax, or just not notable. @Doug Weller: @Ecoboy90: I'd watch what you say if I were in your position. You are in clear violation of WP:NPA with that "Dog Weller" comment. Also, Doug Weller is an admin and an arbitrator, he can block you. It doesn't seem to me like he's at fault, he is just following WP:GNG. You are dangerously close to being blocked. Calm down. Read WP:NOSHAME. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia not a nursery school !! we are writing here because we want to share the knowledge and nothing in return !! that one who is called User:Doug Weller is an admin on himself and he doesn't mean anything for me !! we are not writing her to earn money or getting famous, we are history fans who want to share what we believe is true because we know the language, what is the harm of different spelling if it is true but not sourced in english language .. you can help to verify it by studying the name itself and not by listening to some people who don't even speak the native language !! if you block me from editing, this is called tyranny and you are doing just like military or religious dictators in real life !!!!! that User:Doug Weller has changed the titles of my articles repeatedly without even giving a notice !! he started to provoke me with silly remarks about spelling !! I have included the Sabaic spelling in musnad writings but that "Weller" has ordered the page to be deleted !!!!! he is always arguing about english sources meanwhile he doesn't even create a single page about the related topics, so how can he understand what we are talking about?! I hope that I am dealing with wise adults not with some lobby of tyrants !! Ecoboy90 (talk) 00:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask for a compromise if there is no problem, I would agree a change in spellings if I am going to be contacted by a decent historian admin whom I can discuss with him ... any changes, edits or further interference from that one who is called User:Doug Weller in my articles will not be accepted and will be considered as tyranny in a freely editing environment. As you know that I can make millions of accounts so it is not wise to be hostile against somebody who wrote history articles without offending anyone .. I will say it again, a compromise with a history expert and not with that User:Doug Weller Ecoboy90 (talk) 00:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:ThePlatypusofDoom, User:Ecoboy90, I wouldn't block normally block someone I'm in dispute with. Ecoboy90, we don't compromise on policies. And we don't rely on experts, we rely on sources. Your claim at Talk:Karab El Watar that the fact that all the reliable sources have the spelling Karib'il Watar shows that they are all wrong is ample evidence that you are happy to ignore our policy on naming, and your threat to create sockpuppet accounts strongly suggests that you aren't hear for the good of the encyclopedia. Doug Weller talk 05:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Yeah, he is probably WP:NOTHERE. If this continues, I'll report him to AN, because I doubt that going to WP:DRN will do anything. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC) ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This appears to be a hoax and a sad effort to garner attention, to the extent that Ecoboy90 is probably a bad-faith contributor. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I went to the article on the same subject on Arabic Wikipedia and found a citation for an English language source, ironically enough. There are three mentions of inscriptions bearing the name "Wahab" mentioned in a source published by Johns Hopkins Uni Press: one of which is for the subject of this article in passing; one of which is for a completely different individual (Wahab'awwam), also mentioned only in passing; and one of which is a translation of a damaged inscription and the last name and thus identity of which is indecipherable. There do not appear to be any mentions of this person in any original Arabic sources, and Arabic is the closest language to Himyarite, which is dead. I suspect that this person was a real guy...who is mentioned in one line of an inscription in one of those "whom beget whom" passages. Hardcore fail of notability. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the evidence presented by Doug Weller and MezzoMezzo. BMK (talk) 05:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Might be transliterated wahab'il yahuz? ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 13:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there's still nothing for an acceptable substantial English article, if there are sources, this is best then restarted when better. Nothing currently convincing for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gotham Girls Junior Derby[edit]

Gotham Girls Junior Derby (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 indication of significance. Speedy declined. DGG ( talk ) 20:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I concur there's nothing at all here for any applicable notability, it's a local league founded only 4 years ago and the sources show exactly what a non-notable subject would be: their own links and such. Nothing at all convincing for notability here. SwisterTwister talk 20:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Should be speedy delete. Nothing in the article is suggestive of notability per WP:NSPORT ( = no "claim of significance"), also not a single unaffiliated Google result. Speedy incorrectly declined. — kashmiri ^TALK 22:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Philip J. Miller[edit]

Philip J. Miller (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 plastic surgeon. I consider the list of see also's to indicate advertising, but my speedy on that ground was declined. With respect to WP:PROF, clinical assistant professor is the lowest possible academic rank in the field--essentially an adjunct. Only minor publications, which may account for why none of them are listed. Highest citation figure 50, which is trivial in the field. DGG ( talk ) 20:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Clear CSD#A7: not even a shred of a claim of significance. --Randykitty (talk) 21:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - sources currently in the article are either self-published or are listings on webpages of various societies that he pays money to. I found lots of promotional material, including press releases but during my searching I didn't turn up anything that was reliable and independent. Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet the requirements for notability of an academic. We seem to have a lot of promotional articles on surgeons of various types going around.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:23, 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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wallace Chang[edit]

Wallace Chang (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 plastic surgeon. Looking at Google Scholar, I see several papers, but the one with the highest number of citations has only 49, which is utterly trivial in medicine. DGG ( talk ) 20:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete another article on a non-notable plastic surgeon.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I waited for perhaps people to improve at best, but no one has, so I comment Delete as the analysis is convincing and there's nothing at all for the needed solidity notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 01:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anthology (band)[edit]

Anthology (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)

Fails WP:BAND with no substantive independent references. What is given is clearly originated by the band . Was PRODed but PROD removed  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think there's just enough in the references to meet WP:GNG. If I understand the automatic translation of the reference in Slovak, the band won a 41-band contest to open for Desmod. The band's producer is fairly renowned Roland Grapow and the band's albums receive reviews in metal-specific publications. Pichpich (talk) 03:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I googled more references to meet WP:GNG. Band has mentions in worldwide magazines and webzines. Also known guitarist of Masterplan Roland Grapow is producing them, I also added a video where he talks about their album. Xextro (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:27, 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 Keep as per unanimous consensus, no deletion calls outside of the nominator and an excellent effort to update the article to meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO standards. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 02:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ibtissam Lachgar[edit]

Ibtissam Lachgar (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)

Lacks notability. Fails WP:GNG. CounterTime (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Clearly a major human rights activist in her country, the most cursory of searches brings up ample independent, third-party coverage, clearly meets GNG. Some source material is in French, however. But it's there: Examples: Quoted iN USA today, also: [3], [4], [5], [6]
• Keep Enough coverage to pass WP:GNG, including in major international publications. AusLondonder (talk) 09:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She seems to be one of the few openly irreligious people in Morocco and also an LGBT activist. I have improved the article (see here) and added references. I guess it can be kept now. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:08, 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. Favonian (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of the Worlds Casino Entrepreneurs[edit]

List of the Worlds Casino Entrepreneurs (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 list of people. No explanation on why this categorization of people is notable as a group. Seems to have been created by the editor to prop up the notability/link depth of Deniz Toprak Kiziloz. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. shoy (reactions) 15:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there's nothing insinuating why this is its own article instead of, what would be better, a part of another article especially if a list is all here. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 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 delete. Favonian (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Turkish Business People in Bulgaria[edit]

List of Turkish Business People in Bulgaria (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 list of people. No explanation on why this categorization of people is notable as a group. Seems to have been created by the editor to prop up the notability/link depth of Deniz Toprak Kiziloz. Twice contested proposed deletion -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Both entries don't even reside in Bulgaria according to their Wikipedia articles. Arved (talk) 10:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom and Arved, since it's not only an irrelevant, WP:indiscriminate category but also factually inaccurate. GAB^gab 15:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Notability not established. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• SNOW Delete as by far nothing to suggest its own actual notable article, this is also vulnerable to constant promotionalism, non-notable and other concerns. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 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 delete. Favonian (talk) 20:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cigar Smoking Celebrities[edit]

Cigar Smoking Celebrities (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, trivial list of people. No explanation on why this categorization of people is notable as a group. The inclusion criteria is also vague. Reads more like a clickbait list than a Wikipedia article. Seems to have been created by the editor to prop up the notability/link depth of Deniz Toprak Kiziloz. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nomination. Autarch (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. shoy (reactions) 15:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per all of the above. I will now attempt to create Celebrities who use Windows and Celebrities who wear glasses. GAB^gab 15:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree this it's indiscriminate to list such a wide group of people like this over something that's not a major part of their lives. It's certainly possible to verify that many of these people are cigar-smokers, but I'm not convinced that the article satisfies WP:LISTN. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• SNOW Delete as by far too large and unclear a subject to actually have its own article, especially here at Wikipedia. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 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 delete.  Sandstein  17:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Swinging the Kundiman[edit]

Swinging the Kundiman (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 coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guidelines nor does it meet those for albums. Opencooper (talk) 18:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Opencooper (talk) 18:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Opencooper (talk) 18:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. A redirect is the proper way to go here: not every album by a notable artist is notable. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No notability. Softlavender (talk) 08:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there's still nothing for independent notability as its own article. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wolves of Paris[edit]

Wolves of Paris (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 contains two references, one of which is to a vanity press, and both of which seem of dubious reliability. No citations are provided for any of the (short) text to these references. Most of the online subject matter using this title regards gay erotica, fiction of the event, or is fork or mirror. There is also Metaphorical Representations of the French Revolution in Victorian Fiction from JSTOR, which suggests the term was created as a metaphor about enemies (I can't access the text, but the Google Scholar snippet view gives this impression.) Mindmatrix 18:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 19:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 19:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-I absolutely agree it's low-quality. Given contemporary references to some of these events - Alexandre Tautey's 1880s edition of Journal d'un bourgeois de Paris, written by a 15th-century cleric (see https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_d%27un_bourgeois_de_Paris) - I do wonder if further research would be beneficial, or if the article should simply note that while this has been written about extensively - by, for example, Mark Twain - there's little primary proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.18.18.27 (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This relies way too much on Lulu.com and Edwin Mellen Press, neither of which is reliable. The Simon-Schuster book, Of Wolves and Men looks to be a literary analysis of wolf stories. Barry Lopez mentions the story of Courtaud but doesn't seem to definitively state if it's fact or fiction. Not unlike Beast of Gévaudan, I think this story conflates details of actual wolf attacks thereby assembling a tale. Were the article written per WP:WAF it could be passable but using questionable sources that assert it's true, I have to say no. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the matters of hands being actual accuracy and other information relevancy is enough, and this is not an easy subject to help clear such concerns. Delete as there's nothing currently convincing of what it is expected for an acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Koller[edit]

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

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a football manager who fails WP:GNG and who has not managed a club in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per fail of WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. - SanAnMan (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Subject has never managed in a FPL or a full international match Seasider91 (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the PROD should've deleted this, nothing at all for any independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 14:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails GNG, person not notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:29, 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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Real Music from Chicago[edit]

Real Music from Chicago (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 orphaned article was created by an SPA, who likely had a COI in creating it. The only source used in the article never appears to have been valid, but took until 2 years ago before it was noticed that it was dead. Even the "official website" hasn't been updated since June 2008. While cleaning up this article I tried, but was unable to, establish notability of the subject so I prodded it, but the PROD was removed. AussieLegend (✉) 18:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, appears to be no longer in existence, no notable coverage, fails WP:GNG. - SanAnMan (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Two words; brokered programming. Paid to get on TV, really lousy late night time slots (As a viewer of WMLW I can't even remember this show to be honest). Another one of many paid music programs on broadcast television which mainly exist to give local bands the ability to brag "we got on TV" but had neither the ratings or acclaim to get anything but that (the fact they bragged about being tied with a Packers pre-season replay at 3:30am is downright embarrassing), much less any radio airplay. Nate • (chatter) 05:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC
• Comment I dePRODed this because I am not sure where regional TV shows stand in terms of notability. I guess, I think of WGN and TBS when I think of regional, but they are now almost full fledged networks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete at best as there's still nothing to actually suggest any form of independent notability apart from it being a majorly local indie show. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Surviving Rip Currents The Willis Way[edit]

Surviving Rip Currents The Willis Way (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

While there is some notability to this survival method, it really only merits mention in the Rip current article, not a complete article on its own. Article is written in a "how to" style and also is a back door plug for the Willis Twins. The title does not look like a good redirect. Safiel (talk) 17:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I could not locate any reliable sources for this topic. Tinton5 (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as certainly nothing to suggest why there should be its own article for "surviving" it, there's nothing at all and there's nothing here that cannot be moved to the other article. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Leonard[edit]

Linda Leonard (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 Funimation voice actor. Her major parts are all supporting/minor roles with Joshu Kasei in Psycho-Pass being the most prominent. No appearances in anime convention circuit. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notalbe voice actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as by far nothing suggesting any solid independent notability apart from works with notable films and series, thus not acceptable since inherited notability is not acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not enough prominent roles, no reliable sources. Esw01407 (talk) 13:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable, fails GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:32, 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 delete.  Sandstein  17:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of mathematicians who studied chess[edit]

List of mathematicians who studied chess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A non-notable intersection, entirely unsourced. An unsourced assertion is made that "naturally" chess appeals to mathematicians. Some of the people listed are noted mathematicians who happened to play a bit of chess, others are noted chess players who happened to study mathematics at university. A similar list could probably be made of economists, lawyers, psychologists etc. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nom. There are no sources present to give any indication of why this particular intersection is notable at all. It is just a list of people who happened to have had interest in two random, unconnected fields to varying degrees. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 20:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:LISTN. For example, see BBC and New York Times. Andrew D. (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even allowing for this the article needs a lot of work to bring it up to wikipedia standard, and I don't mean just adding a few names. There is simply no comparison between Anthony Santasiere, a minor chess master who taught high school mathematics for his day job, and Abraham de Moivre, the great 18th century mathematician who may or may not have played a bit of chess in his spare time (no source is given of course). To me the article doesn't look worth saving. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid problems of this type, I'd like to see this restricted to people who made notable contributions to both chess and mathematics. This is definitely a non-empty set — it includes for instance Elkies and Smullyan — but is it large enough for an actual list? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not many people would meet wikipedia's notability criteria in both chess and any other field. Elkies wouldn't qualify for an article on the basis of his chess achievements - he's one of about 1000 National Masters in the US, and the World Chess Solving Championship doesn't get a lot of attention from chess news media, let alone from mainstream media. Off hand, I can think of very few people who meet wikipedia's notability criteria for both chess and one other field, and none of them are mathematicians - there's Kenneth Rogoff (economist), Mark Taimanov (pianist), Miguel Farré (also a pianist) and Stuart Milner-Barry (codebreaker). MaxBrowne (talk) 09:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re Elkies, NM is not enough for chess notability of course but I was actually referring to his contributions to chess problems and his problem solving championship. And for Smullyan, his chess notability comes from his popularization of retrograde analysis through writing two books on the subject. I don't think we should require that the subject be independently notable in both categories, but they should have some sort of claim of significance beyond studying mathematics at school or playing chess at an amateur level. Another possibility is Kenneth W. Regan. We don't have an article on him but he has made contributions to both computational complexity and chess (specifically, analysis of rating systems and of computerized cheating, not so much for his over-the-board play, although he is an IM). —David Eppstein (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to mention Primary decomposition and Emanuel Lasker. :) 189.63.172.98 (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks, that's the other one I was trying to remember. So that's three people with significant contributions to both worlds. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it stands, although I would be willing to change my mind if the entries were cited and some actual, referenced justification was given as to why this particular intersection is interesting. Double sharp (talk) 13:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is my feeling too. I can be brought around but only if the article is significantly improved. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As noted by Andrew Davidson mathematicians who studied or played chess is a topic that has received attention. David Spanier wrote in Total Chess that music, mathematics and chess are linked by their propensity to produce prodigies, and the pursuits have other connections too. Admittedly the article is not the best right now, but the current state is not so poor as to demand immediate removal and it won't ever improve if it is deleted. List of amateur chess players is an example of what the list could become if it were trimmed a bit, sourced and expanded to describe the contributions to math and chess. Quale (talk) 04:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm not sure about the list (leaning a very weak keep), but I wonder if it makes sense to think instead about an article Chess and mathematics which would cover a broader intersection of the subjects. We have, for example, Go and mathematics. There's also Mathematical chess problem, recreational mathematics, and the Chess'n Math Association... Not something that has to be decided at this AfD, but if such an article existed, it would make for a very sensible merge target (for any sourced content). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lack of citations, no obvious standard for inclusion on either criterion (what's the threshold to be declared a "mathematician"? What's the threshold for "studied chess"?), no way to judge completeness or timeliness. I agree Chess and mathematics would be an interesting and valuable article, as it's clearly a significant crossover; this list, though, is no more verifiable or useful than, say, List of mathematicians who wore braces. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 15:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Before I !vote is it me or is there a WP:SYNTH going on with this article...? There are obvious source issues but just wondering if it's just me? - Pmedema (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Never sure what these lists are meant to achieve. "Studied" is a very flexible term and mathematics come in many forms, pure and applied. There's an obvious link between the disciplines, but equally we could have a list of musicians; stringing together notes to form a tune is akin to combining chess moves to create tactics. Ed Lasker has written about these connections, but here we have no discussion and a consequent lack of usefulness. Brittle heaven (talk) 17:57, 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 merge to List of Australian Ambassadors to Egypt.  Sandstein  17:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian Ambassadors to Syria[edit]

List of Australian Ambassadors to Syria (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)

clearly fails WP:GNG. this article is entirely based on primary sources being government press releases. In fact most of the sources are actually about the appointment of an ambassador to Egypt whilst holding a secondary role as non resident ambassador to Syria. Let's see if the usual suspect turns up with non genuine WP:MUSTBESOURCES or WP:ADHOM reasoning which will only weaken the case for establishing notability. LibStar (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and merge info. I agree with the nominator. As per the AFD discussion on the Australian Ambassadors to Kazakhstan page, this info could easily be placed on the List of Australian Ambassadors to Egypt page, which will strengthen that page and not lose anything worth saying about this subject, of which there appears to be little. I must admit to have had some trepidation when these pages for former embassy postings were created. The page List of Australian Ambassadors to Norway being a prominent example of this (Australia has never had a resident embassy in Oslo!).Siegfried Nugent (talk) 05:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been done.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 06:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of Australian Ambassadors to Egypt. It appears that a partial merge has occurred, but some of this content is not on the merge target page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of Australian Ambassadors to Egypt. As a stand-alone topic, it is not encyclopedic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and then consider Merge as needed, nothing to suggest its own article. SwisterTwister talk 00:41, 10 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of batsmen who scored 50,000 or more runs in all forms of recognized cricket[edit]

List of batsmen who scored 50,000 or more runs in all forms of recognized cricket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

An other sock creation with questionable notability. 50 000 runs seems like an very arbitrary number and what says this is notable? This is just an other list (among many others) from ESPN Cricinfo without evidence of widespread notability to pass WP:GNG. Once created and never updated (so out of date) is one issue as well. Qed237 (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the reasons of geographic bias. This clearly favours English cricketers who play a lot more of first class and limited overs cricket. LibStar (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The ESPN list works on a threshold of 40,000. StAnselm (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Completely arbitrary threshold, and there is no category called "all forms of recognized cricket". Wikipedia is not a statistics database. IgnorantArmies (talk) 03:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't believe this is a notable landmark (say compared to 10,000+ Test runs) - it's just a random cut-off with a vague inclusion criteria. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nothing to suggest the needed solidity as its own article. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Completely made up (in terms of benchmark) and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If we were to keep this list, then what stops us for having lists with 15000, 20000, 25000, 30000 runs etc? Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:34, 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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Marfone[edit]

Ryan Marfone (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)

Entirely non-notable. References are, putting it very kindly, insubstantial. AfDing rather than speeding because some people might consider being responsible for a couple of non-notable games is a claim of notability; there's nowt so queer as folk. TheLongTone (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the following related pages should also be deleted for lack of notability, and have added them to this AfD. - ubiquity (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bag'Em (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kung Foo (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Delete: does not meet WP:GNG. Plenty of references, but they don't establish notability. ubiquity (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets standards defined in WP.GNG. As the author of this article, I have verified that the article and references establish notability:

• Significant coverage is referenced
• Cited sources meet guidelines for reliability
• Secondary sources are cited
• Content is independent of subject
• Therefore, the subject can be presumed to be suitable as a stand-alone article

Removed date of birth per request below. I still believe this is a notable topic. Vrinvestor (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• None of the sources that you cite indicate independent coverage. A link to Amazon, or the App Store, or PR websites may establish that this person exists, but they do not indicate notability as Wikipedia defines it. Press releases or user-submitted content websites are by definition not independent of the subject. shoy (reactions) 17:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All 3 - I don't agree that the sources are reliable but I'll say that he and his games do exist. Where it fails quite obviously is that there is no notability for this subject or the games that he has made which can be more specifically found in WP:NGAME. In looking into Ryan Marfone, I can see that is is "investing in Virtual Reality". Possible WP:COI issue? - Pmedema (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this - Hello, I am Ryan Marfone. While I'm super humbled that you want to create a page for me I kindly ask that you take this down. I'm not a fan of publicly displaying my personal information on a site that can be edited by anyone. - ryan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanmarfone (talk • contribs) 18:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC) I also want to add that I'm not a notable topic. I'm just a normal dude. Please delete.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 19:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged with G7 after original author blanked page in response to request of the apparent subject of this bio. dstone66 ^{(ṭạḷḳ)} 20:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So far this has not happened with the two game articles, so they are still under consideration here. ubiquity (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both games - unsourced and no claims of notability. shoy (reactions) 15:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I've deleted the original article under G7 as the creator blanked it. I'm leaving the AfD open to discuss the two other articles though. Hut 8.5 21:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both that still exist, nothing at all for any minimal independent notability, newly started indie games with nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 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 keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Balkrishna[edit]

Balkrishna (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)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

How is this nonsense allowed? "He has explored four rare and extinct aṣṭavarga plants used as ingredients in the preparation of chyavanaprāśa, an Ayurvedic tonic. Discovered the sañjīvanībūtī of legendary fame." This article should be up for deletion. If no neutral information can be provided, none should be provided at all. Least of all claims of resurrecting extinct plants or creating magic medicines!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.91.152.105 (talk) 07:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC) Edit: Marked for deletion. As per Wikipedia's deletion policy ^[1], this article violates rule #4 "Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content", #7 "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" - Good luck finding sources for him rediscovering extinct plants, #9 "Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons", blatantly violating no original research and #14 "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia" which clearly states no to "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise" or "Self-promotion". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.91.152.105 (talk) 07:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rewrite heavily, or blow it up and start over. I have completed the nomination on behalf of the above IP editor. Subject is clearly notable based on the sources already in the article, but the article is completely whitewashed of the negative information found, for instance, in the cited Business Standard article. This needs a far more neutral treatment. --Finngall ^talk 17:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, per WP:UGLY I'd like to see the article cleaned up a little, sources are not a problem here. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I think this should be subject to WP:TNT or deleted as a whole. The article is too biased to be saved and evidently written with a clear autobiographical positive bias and serious whitewashing. A few newspaper articles and recognition by the Indian Prime Minister in a minor, insignificant and not well publicized press release does not necessarily demonstrate the necessary notability requirements, and sources should be more carefully examined to determine whether if they indeed do establish notability based on their credibility, the significance that the subject matter of the article is reflected upon (in this case, Acharya Balkrishna) and reliability as sources. Works of publications/primary sources by the Balk... that do not add to the article itself and uncited awards/information further lends itself to the notion that it is an autobiography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CycoPenguin (talk • contribs) 01:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep: A 94% stake holder of a ₹5000 crore company Patanjali Ayurved.[7]. & in news not just for that.[8][9]. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 18:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I've reverted the article to an earlier revision which is reasonable if not great. I've warned User:Kingsuknandi who was responsible for much of the NPOV issues with the article. Another editor who edits the page frequently is User:Aashishssharma004; his might be a promotion-only account as his edits are only concerned with Balkrishna, Patanjali, and Patanjali's Acharyakulam. I'm unsure if he should be reported/warned.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 18:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Both the person and the company are very notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:36, 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 Delete. Non-independent sources and a few passing mentions elsewhere do not establish notability. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cours de Formation Generale pour Adultes Ruraux[edit]

Cours de Formation Generale pour Adultes Ruraux (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 organization. Another in the dozens of Jesuit centres stream of articles that are largely based on thin notability and a web of inter-related self-published sources. This one has very poor sourcing. This organization does good work, but Wikipedia is not the place to advertise and promote religious ventures that do not meet the notability rules. Belongs on a its own site. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This article deals with a notable developmental work over a long period of time, with sufficient international notice shown in the references.Jzsj (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:ORG. the sources do not cover the subject in depth and secondly zero gnews hits. LibStar (talk) 01:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I have found nothing better and there's nothing to suggest actual independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deutsche Gulf Finance[edit]

Deutsche Gulf Finance (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 would've PRODed too, my searches are finding several links, including some about the actual Deutsche Bank itself and not this 2010-start company, but all that I've found of this specific bank is nothing convincing for better notability. You'll notice this article's history is also troubled therefore notifying past user and tagger AllyD. SwisterTwister talk 00:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I have added another reference to support part of the article text, and I did find mention of one other award (TradeArabia (2011)  – via HighBeam (subscription required) ), though too trivial for the article itself, but this amounts only to evidence that this joint-venture exists and not evidence of its encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 11:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not enough in-depth coverage. Tom29739 ^[talk] 19:39, 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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elastic Games[edit]

Elastic Games (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 video game company who have yet to produce anything. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually they were notable back in 2012 for going to develop a game called Police Warfare and are now notable for developing Last Year. It is going to come out this November. Don't make James Wearing mad he gave me all the info about everything and he was really happy about it so how about I give you his email and you take up its Non-notable with him as all the members on his team are notable they worked on all kinds of games. And Canada Media Fund and Epic Games donated to them for Last Year so why would they donate if there a Non-notable game company. And there game is due for November 2016. So how about you tell me why it's Non-notable and il send that to James Wearing and then he will probably write something about this to. So I don't get why you say Non-notable thousands of people donated to to the Kickstarter campaign and Canada Media Fund and Epic Games the makers of Unreal Engine even donated to them so why would they do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheHistoryKnower (talk • contribs) 16:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. It is obviously way too soon to have an article about this company. Notability is established if the company gained significant coverage from secondary reliable sources. However, most sources seem to only focus on their upcoming game, Last Year, instead of the company itself. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I have still found nothing better, the company is only newly started within the past few years and there's nothing at all to at least insinuate this has become better noticed and can be minimally independently notable from its own games. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable, much WP:TOOSOON. Tom29739 ^[talk] 19:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, classical case of WP:TOOSOON. Cavarrone 05:28, 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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Melville[edit]

Thomas Melville (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)

Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:BIO and doesn't inherit notability from his brother, Herman Melville. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: notability not inheritable -- Wikipedia 101. Quis separabit? 20:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nothing at all to suggest there's the information and solidity for his own article, quite unlikely to ever happen. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Betelgeuse Studios[edit]

Betelgeuse Studios (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:TOOSOON. The company was formed two months ago and is clearly not not notable. AdrianGamer (talk) 13:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video games-related deletion discussions. AdrianGamer (talk) 13:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Yeah, it looks too soon for an article yet. There are no hits in a WP:VG/RS Google custom search for any of the company's given titles. Once they get coverage, we can recreate the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I've got my suspicions that this is a hoax altogether. I came across the article when he added it as a developer for a game that is stuck in development hell, and it seemed unlikely that a studio formed months ago had come out of the blue to take over. Zero sources, and questionable edits by the article creator, make me think this is fake, or no more "real" than me declaring out of the blue that today, going forward, I'm going to start a video game company or something... Sergecross73 msg me 12:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and there's enough consensus for this, only a newly started localized company with therefore nothing at all for any applicable notability and I would've frankly considered A7 and PROD here. SwisterTwister talk 22:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Appears to be a probable case of advertising and definitely too soon. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:38, 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 delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SSSCart[edit]

SSSCart (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 indication of notability for the company. Essentially no coverage in independent sources except for trivial company listings. No longer a penguin (talk) 12:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC) No longer a penguin (talk) 12:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not notable.--DThomsen8 (talk) 13:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete New company, article self-soruced, producs blank news google search [10] delete as WP:PROMO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and there's enough consensus, there's nothing at all to suggest a 3-year-old local company would've obtained enough news sources to suggest any applicable notability including the specific companies notability. There's nothing at all convincing whatsoever. SwisterTwister talk 22:17, 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. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 01:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Elston[edit]

Julie Elston (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 text, this is an article about an Associate Professor at an American University. This level in academia is deemed inherently notable. The remaining refs show that she has won an award and has been an editor on two publications. Nowhere is there any evidence of independent notability. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   12:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Google scholar lists [11] five papers with over 100 citations, and an h-index of nearly 20. It's not enough even to put her in to the top 25% of economists in her state [12], let alone the top 10% of the US or world [13] [14] but I think it may be enough for WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep -Ipigott (talk) 10:12, 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 Speedy Deleted (G5) by Ponyo. -I've also sent it to WP:RFPP due to it being repeatedly created, Thanks, (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Creation-blocked/protected" by Ponyo. –Davey2010^Talk 22:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DXZQ[edit]

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

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

No evidence of any notability. Fails WP:GNG one of a tranche of very similar articles that look like re-creations of articles deleted in the past  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   12:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Per CSD G5. The Creator was blocked by @Bbb23: indefinitely with the note "Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roi Casilana" --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 19:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 19:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 19:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 19:57, 31 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 no consensus. I'm closing this as no consensus after two re-listings. The nominator was blocked as a sock puppet and there doesn't seem to be any clear consensus and a third relist wouldn't benefit the article in my eyes. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 01:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fazlur Rahman Faridi[edit]

Fazlur Rahman Faridi (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)

Notability - ArtsRescuer • Talk me 12:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC) — ArtsRescuer (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Shafinusri (talk • contribs). [reply]

• Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Alternative search per WP:INDAFD: Fazlur Rahman Faridi) --Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Could the nominator elaborate, please? The article is a bit underreferenced, but it does have links to two lengthy independent obituaries that call him "eminent" and "renowned". Uanfala (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Content copied from the link: http://thesolution.in/wiki/dr-fazlur-rahman-faridi @User:RHaworth • ArtsRescuer 23:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure, but it looks like it is vice-versa: the text of the article was copied to the external web site. Vanjagenije (talk) 07:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that looks like a copy of wikipedia: the article's creation date (according to its metadata is 2015), while the wikipedia article here has been around in its present form since 2013. Uanfala (talk) 09:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArtsRescuer, Your vote as nominator counts automatically. Thanks. Uanfala (talk) 10:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete at best for now and restore or restart if needed at all later because, if there's anything acceptable from the current article, I'm simply not seeing it and the current article is noticeably troubled thus there's simply nothing at all to actually suggest keeping this. SwisterTwister talk 19:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The person is probably notable, as shown by the sources cited in the article [15][16]. Also, Google Books search returns many hits [17]. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanjagenije: I've had a look at the first 15 results in the google books link you provided, but they all either cite him or are written by himself. None of them appear to be about him, so I don't think they are relevant here. Citations might be (according to WP:PROF), provided he's been cited substantially more than other scholars in his field. Uanfala (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The nominator did not have a decent reason to delete. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Notability not found in sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:50, 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 no consensus. No consensus for a particular action has emerged within this discussion. Of note is that there is disagreement herein about whether or not WP:FRINGE and fringe theories are applicable to the subject and the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Traynor (Royal Marine)[edit]

John Traynor (Royal Marine) (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)