< 29 April	1 May >

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wrestling League[edit]

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

Non-notable wrestling promotion. Doesn't appear to be sufficient GNG to warrant an article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of third party sources. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. Nothing encyclopedically relevant here. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:52, 8 May 2017 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kyohei Wada[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG, as there is no significant coverage in independent sources. Please note that professional wrestlers and professional wrestling referees are covered by the notability guideline at WP:ENTERTAINER, which he does not meet. The only sources are WP:ROUTINE results at a wrestling database with no criteria for inclusion. Nikki♥311 23:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 23:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 23:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.80.159 (talk) 09:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Please elaborate. Nikki♥311 19:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:GNG per the nominator. Referees in wrestling are rarely notable when they are not involved in storylines as the likes of Earl Hebner, Charles Robinson and Mike Chioda have been. Lack of coverage shows that Wada has not been involved in that way. 101.182.45.178 (talk) 10:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:07, 5 May 2017 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sheeja Jose[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer, with no strong claim to passing WP:AUTHOR and no evidence of the reliable source coverage needed to support it. The only potential claim of notability here is the assertion that her first book was a "bestseller" — but it fails to either source the fact or quantify what bestseller list it appeared on (i.e. making the Indian equivalent of the New York Times bestseller list would get her in the door here, while making India's Amazon sales list would not). And all we actually have for sourcing here is Goodreads, Amazon and a Q&A interview on an unreliable blog. As always, every writer who exists is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because her existence is nominally verified by promotional pages on Amazon or Goodreads; she must be the subject of media coverage about her for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as PROMO sourced to goodreads and Amazon.com.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:36, 3 May 2017 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mfidie[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. bojo | talk 22:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete – Does not meet WP:WEBCRIT. Finding no coverage in reliable sources, let alone significant coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:38, 8 May 2017 (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Pikeville protests[edit]

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

We are not the news: this was just another demonstration, and not all demonstrations are notable, with or without a ban on hoods. Even if there is a suggestion of the GNG being met because of some coverage right now, there is no indication whatsoever that this is in any way of lasting value. If this is allowed to stand, we have license for every single event that gets a bit of coverage to get its own article. Drmies (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a clear wp:NOTNEWS. I'm sure there may be some list of or article about such events in which this may merit a mention.TheLongTone (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Pikeville, Kentucky. ^Falling_Gravity 22:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Drmies. WP:NOTNEWS, and the current lead misleadingly states "a series of rallies and counterprotests" when there was only a single rally of no proven lasting value to merit a standalone article. Funcrunch (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In many cases it is obvious that a recent event will have long-term notability. Although this event did receive considerable coverage, there is nothing in the coverage to indicate long-term notability. It is just news. Because it is just news, I also don't think it is a good idea to merge it into the Pikeville, Kentucky article. --I am One of Many (talk) 07:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS; I would suggest openness on the question of merging into the town's article if it turns out that it had a lasting impact on the town (legislatively, perhaps). Not that it's relevant here, but at no point in the article does it actually give the date of the thing. D'oh. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 11:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTNEWS. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As others have said, NOTNEWS. Egsan Bacon (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think this article could be included as a section to a larger subject, such as the Pikeville, Kentucky article. This single event is not notable enough to keep this article as it stands. 173.90.239.8 (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:05, 5 May 2017 (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 per WP:G7. Author requests deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Papers in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society[edit]

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

Reason Vconstant (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Notable Papers in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society[reply]

Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notable Papers in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted. by User:RHaworth. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ODAATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE[edit]

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

Could not find any trace of this story online. Seems to fail WP:NPLACE. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 20:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Lawrie Brewster. Redirects are cheap. If Brewster wasn't himself somewhat notable I'd go for delete but I think redirecting serves a reasonable compromise, allowing us to retain the history and also point searchers to something related, for now. Page can be resurrected as an article if there are sufficient RS in the future. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Gloves[edit]

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

Oppose: Does not meet WP:NFILM. The second link under External links indicates that it is being funded through a kickstarter campaign that hasn't even ended yet. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 20:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support: On IMDb, it is listed as being in post-production. Also, a trailer was put up here.

https://www.flickeringmyth.com/2017/04/the-owlman-returns-in-trailer-for-horror-noir-the-black-gloves/ PeterMan844 (talk) 20:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would vote to have this redirect to Brewster's article for the time being. I've followed his work ever since Lord of Tears and the work he's released typically gains enough coverage to justify inclusion. I'm going to try to save the page first, but if I can't save it in the here and now I'd like to have this redirected with history because it will be extremely likely to have the needed coverage once it releases later this year to film festivals. It's how I've created his last film, The Unkindness of Ravens, after all. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This could probably muster a weak keep given the additional sourcing, but if it doesn't then I'd highly, highly encourage that this be redirected with history until more coverage becomes available, which I think will be more of a "when" rather than an "if". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No release dates or distribution information at IMDbPro. Lacking in sources. Thuresson (talk) 10:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thuresson, Esprit15d, would either of you be opposed to a redirect with history if this closes as a delete? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I wouldn't oppose it, but this seems like a textbook delete. I don't see how it meets WP:NFILM at all.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 11:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I'm pushing for a redirect with history is that I'm familiar with how the guy does his fundraising and promotion after working on the articles for his other two horror films. He typically does the filming first (I think he uses grant money, investor funding, or profits from prior projects to fund this) and saves the Kickstarter stuff for the post-production work for the most part. It's not unheard of for people to break a routine, but he seems to follow this pattern fairly regularly with his projects, from what I've seen. My thought is that even if this Kickstarter fails, he'll likely scale back the post work and open a new one with a lower target amount until it passes. He still has 20 days and it's about 65-70-ish percent funded, so it's still possible it could get funded. Keeping the history in this case would be a good insurance policy for when the film does come out. It would also help prevent future recreation, as it can redirect to Brewster's article and we can put 1-2 sentences about the current film in the main article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not trying to act snippy or that, but I don't really understand why you'd want it deleted. It is a film that exists. People are keen to see it. Articles don't really clog up server space, so it's good information to keep up. I also created the Redcon-1 page and that's not even out yet. When people do Google searches or even searches on other engines, Wikipedia is usually the first site people like I look at other than IMDb. So I don't see why it truly matters.PeterMan844 (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathize with your frustration, since this is topic that matters to you. But I don't think anyone here has any personal feelings about this article; this is just a routine maintenance procedure according to Wikipedia deletion policy.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The movie is unfinished. There is a Kickstarter campaign to finance production. It is not obvious that the Kickstarter campaign will be successful. I agree with Esprit15d. Thuresson (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In that case, they shouldn't put up on IMDb that a film is in post-production. That's the same thing as lying, in a sense. The folk working on Redcon-1 did that too. They were supposed to have finished filming last October. We were drip fed little bits of information about it on Facebook, but we didn't get a release date. According to a news page from May last year, Epic Pictures are distributing it. The crew chose to shoot more scenes recently which will likely delay its release even more. I cannot see it being out any time soon either, as it's been in production for 5 years.PeterMan844 (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, the shooting is completed and it's in post-production. I know that sometimes post work can include some reshoots here and there, though. In case, from what I've seen with this director with his last two Kickstarters, he did the filming first and opened the Kickstarter after all of the main filming was done in order to finance all of the post-production work. This looks to be a similar case here. It's why I'm pushing so hard for this to be redirected, as I'm familiar with how the guy has operated so far with Kickstarter stuff. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm very skeptical about donating such a high amount of cash to people, but I do have the biggest horror sequels collection in Edinburgh, which is why I'm sort of happy for the guy's work. And I'm also interested in extras work myself. However, I've had issues recently with people in this indie film crowd "black balling" me so I don't get work. This actress was the main culprit. But they do it in messages I cannot see. It's been a real nuisance. Anyway, that's not really the topic of debate here. Maybe the article should easily not heavily promote a release date, or maybe a redirect is okay. PeterMan844 (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC) Comments: *Really, I meant.PeterMan844 (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2017 (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Future College Prep[edit]

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

School that fails GNG. Cannot find any sources other than MaxPrep or other similar high school athlete ranking services; no second party reliable coverage on the school itself. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (per DEL8). Not only is there no coverage, but a simple Google search using the school's name and founder's name given in the article indicates that it's a sole proprietorship run out of an unmarked warehouse. Thus, the article arguably qualifies for speedy deletion under both A7 (no credible claim of significance and not actually a school) and G11 (unambiguous advertising). Rebb ing 22:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and Rebbing. Cubbie15fan (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if a school in the United States gets this little verifiable coverage in independent sources, there is no possible way for it to meet our inclusion standards. The outcome of the RfC urged us to look for sources and consider the possibility of offline sources. I've done that, and given the context here, can't find a justifiable reason to !vote keep. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article does not have enough content to keep. In fact this really isn't an article, its more like a sentence. Unless someone can add a lot more information and resources, this is not worth keeping. Bmbaker88 (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree this is below the standard for even verification. DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep? What about these sources: USA Today High School Sports Kansas City Star (The_Kansas_City_Star) Gazette Newspapers (appears to be small paper in Long Beach), so no great RS in itself, but appears to be indep. and not self-pub.. Am I missing something? Sorry if I am unfamiliar with the requirements for WP:NSPORT. It appears to be a real team; whether it is notable is another question... --David Tornheim (talk) 22:45, 6 May 2017 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shortfall[edit]

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

Article about a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC, and no strong reliable source coverage to support it. They released two albums on an indie label that is not prominent enough to get them over NMUSIC #5, they placed two tracks on compilation albums that weren't notable enough to pass NMUSIC #10, and the only source present for anything at all here is not substantive coverage of the band, but a glancing namecheck of their existence in an article about one of the compilation albums. As always, Wikipedia is not a platform on which a band is entitled to have an article just because they existed; there must be a strong claim of notability, and enough reliable source coverage about them to support it, for an article to become earned. And even if we did accept 5 and 10 on the grounds that there's some room for debate how much notability the label or the compilation has to have to count toward passage of those criteria, the reliable source coverage about them is the one NMUSIC criterion that no band is ever exempted from having to pass — even if the article claims passage of every other criterion in the list, an article still can't be kept if the claims can't be supported by reliable source coverage about the band. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability found from a Google search, and there's not really much of a claim of notability in the article - playing gigs in your hometown, appearing on a community channel, releases on a pretty minor label, etc. --Michig (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Pimlott[edit]

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

WP:BLP, written like a résumé rather than an encyclopedia article, about an architect and writer whose strongest claim of notability for either endeavour is that he exists. And there's no reliable source coverage in media being shown to get him over WP:GNG, either -- of the six "sources" here, three of them are to his own self-published curriculum vitae, two are to his primary source "staff" profiles on the websites of organizations he's directly affiliated with, and the last is GoodReads. This is not how you reference a person as notable enough for a Wikipedia article -- a person gets an article on here by being the subject of media coverage, not by sticking a PDF of his own résumé on a file-hosting server. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete NCMECK345 (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, no reliable sources found to verify notability. XboxGamer22408^{talk to me} 20:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References are either not valid or not independent. Does not meet WP:GNG. --Rogerx2 (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment"strongest claim of notability for either endeavour is that he exists" is putting a bit strongly. I'd say the work outside Broadcasting house an achievement.TheLongTone (talk)

Excepting maybe for the fact that the sculpture hasn't actually been shown to clear WP:GNG either, because its only sources are the BBC itself (a primary source, not an independent one, in the context of an artwork it commissioned for its own head office) and a glancing namecheck of its existence in an article that isn't about it? Bearcat (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article does not have much significant information on the subject and the sources are not well known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.90.239.8 (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only thing to go on here is citations, and they aren't there. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The only claim to notability I can see is that he "created (…) a significant or well-known work (…)" Per WP:ARTIST "such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work" and that is not the case here. Mduvekot (talk) 17:40, 7 May 2017 (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. Delete for now as failing WP:NFILM. We can revisit after the release date in June, but we can't keep the AfD open for a month waiting for that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetiee Weds NRI[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Winged Blades^Godric 16:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades^Godric 16:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades^Godric 16:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NFILM. Film still in production and the article does not state any sort of notability in regards to the production of the film. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 17:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The major movie booking sites in India, for example BookMyShow and PVR, have 2 June 2017 as the release date for the movie.[1][2] Given the tabloid interest this movie has already generated,[3][4][5], I expect the film to easily qualify on NFILM, getting the required number of reviews. I would rather that this Afd be kept hanging till around that time, before deciding on whether to delete or keep the article. Lourdes 18:33, 30 April 2017 (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

University at Buffalo's Accounting Association[edit]

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

From the original PROD tag: Not a WP:WEBHOST & no chance of passing WP:ORG for this student association. Calton | Talk 16:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability. SL93 (talk) 02:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete -- surprised that this article has survived 9 years. I'll try a speedy; see if this takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No obvious independent sources beyond a few passing mentions and I don't think name is a suitable redirect. The problem with a speedy is that this topic may fall foul of the "educational institutions" exception for WP:CSD#A7. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom Cubbie15fan (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The information in this article could probably be found on the university's website. The information is not notable or remarkable in anyway. Bmbaker88 (talk) 21:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:58, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:58, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:06, 6 May 2017 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Law Students' Debating Society of Ireland[edit]

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

From the original PROD tag: "Non-notable academic club. Searching does not turn up any indication it has done anything significant." Calton | Talk 16:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as original PROD tagger. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lana Lokteff[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-article on a non-notable "political activist", supported by non-significant coverage. Calton | Talk 16:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:GNG. Non-noteable radio personality. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 17:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the sources come even close to showing notability. Some of them are cases that have been critiqued as trying to make people appear notable and influential who have much less following than some have tried to suggest.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:53, 5 May 2017 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FOSSA (company)[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Sources consist of trivial listings and routine reporting based on a press release of non-noteworthy funding. - Mr X 15:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- corp spam on an unremarkable tech startup. Funding is miniscule; definitely WP:TOOSOON. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:37, 1 May 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Libra (software)[edit]

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

Fails to meet Wikipedia notability requirements. Sure, there are tons of other apps called "Libra", for which you can find a smidgen of coverage, but not for this one. (This app never reached the 1.0 milestone.) Codename Lisa (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Flow 234 (Nina) talk 22:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Flow 234 (Nina) talk 22:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable software per WP:N. SL93 (talk) 02:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 04:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of course just being discontinued is not a reason to delete, but this never seemed to be notable to begin with. Just another victim of the 2008 bubble bursting, not lasting long enough to meet notability thresholds. W Nowicki (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2017 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jag Mag[edit]

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

I live in Jacksonville and have never heard of the Jag Mag, the website provided in External links is not active, and Googling Jag Mag has no relevant results. This article appears to be outdated and irrelevant. ~ Richmond96 T • C 14:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- No assertion of notability, no reliable sources. And judging by the edit history, it looks like one of the principal article authors is one of the publication's contributing staff members. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 22:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's a bunch of Jag Mag titles out there, none of which are related to this one. There are no sources in the article and no sources found in searches. Nothing to indicate passes general or specific notability guidelines. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) - TheMagnificentist 11:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SNBRN[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO - TheMagnificentist 11:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He has over 1 million plays monthly on Spotify. More than most artists on Wikipedia and Spotify. I don't see how he is non-notable..--Simen113 (talk) 11:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, only now I noticed he also has some songs charted on acceptable charts. The article could use expansion though. - TheMagnificentist 11:11, 30 April 2017 (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) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 14:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Cannonball Cup[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSEVENT.~~ I was only able to find a single independent source. - Mr X 10:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Insufficient coverage in reliable sources failing WP:SIGCOV. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 14:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: GNG is meet after receiving a notification of providing sources. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 11:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This event attracted a large amount of media attention at the time (1984), with at least 50 newspaper articles that I know of, plus television coverage. Unfortunately there is very little information online because this happened in Australia over 30 years ago. It would be a shame for there to be no record of the event here on Wikipedia because of my inexperience in Wikipedia editing. You found a reference in the Victorian Parliament documents which is surely a very reliable source. The website I linked to has many scans of newspaper articles. Can you suggest how I can save this page?Johnaau (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To keep the article you need to properly reference it, demonstrating notability as per WP:GNG. You should be able to do this by rewriting the article and using the 50 newspaper articles as in line references for each statement. Aoziwe (talk) 13:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS Some sections would also be good, eg Race promotion, Race rules, Race running, Outcome. Aoziwe (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NEXIST as per newspaper articles. Aoziwe (talk) 13:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets GNG. See: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], etc. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Extensive contemporary sources linked above.- Mr X 10:43, 7 May 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Said the Shark[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND - TheMagnificentist 10:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no significant coverage per WP:BAND. SL93 (talk) 01:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BAND. full of red links and only primary sources provided. LibStar (talk) 11:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close of discussion that was opened in the wrong place. Deletion discussion re-started here (non-admin closure) bonadea contributions talk 11:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Chad Young[edit]

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

I have no wish to denigrate this young man's memory or to cause upset to his family and friends, but riders at CT level are not generally considered to meet notability guidelines. There was no apparent interest in considering his nascent career worthy of an article while he was alive, and his tragic death has not been considered widely newsworthy beyond the limited scope of cycling media. A desperately sad situation, but Wikipedia articles should not be created as memorials. Kevin McE (talk) 10:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: I see that I made the error of starting this process while I was on the talk page rather than the article itself. Could an admin change it to be more appropriately directed if it is in their power alone, or alert me how to do this if I can. Apologies. Kevin McE (talk) 11:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAW: I have now started the procedure in the right place. Kevin McE (talk) 11:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 12:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Fung[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jim Fung

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

No available sources except 2 obituaries in and one short article in Blitz Australianblackbelt (talk) 00:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Stephens, Tony (2007-04-01). "Businessman and martial artist packed a punch". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2017-04-23. Retrieved 2017-04-23.
  The article notes:
  Fung, who has died at 62, became one of the best known martial artists in the world and a leading figure in Australia's Chinese business community. His academy has 20 branches in three states, with eight franchises overseas.
  Fung Chuen Keung was born in Hong Kong to Fung Siu Keung, a businessman, and his wife, Pong Yuk Ying. A good pianist at school, he considered a professional career but after being bullied in the playground he trained in kung-fu, at the same school as the actor Bruce Lee.
  Fung's first martial art was tai chi but he changed to wing chun after witnessing a fight in which a classmate easily overpowered a bully. He trained under Great Grandmaster Tsui Seung Tin, a disciple of Yip Man, who took wing chun to Hong Kong during the Cultural Revolution.
2. "Martial arts leader leaves living legacy". The Advertiser. 2007-03-31. Archived from the original on 2017-04-23. Retrieved 2017-04-23.
  The article notes:
  Jim Fung
  
  Martial arts grandmaster
  
  Born: May 16, 1944; Hong Kong
  
  Died: March 18, 2007; Sydney
  
  GRANDMASTER Jim Fung was among the world's best-known martial artists and a leading figure in Australia's Chinese business community. Grandmaster Fung, whose International Wing Chun Academy grew from a backyard shed in Adelaide to Australia's biggest martial art school, fought cancer for three years.
  Grandmaster Fung came to Australia in 1959 as a secondary school student, having trained in Wing Chun kung fu under Great Grandmaster Tsui Seung Tin in Hong Kong. Master Tsui, a disciple of the legendary Yip Man who took Wing Chun to Hong Kong during the Chinese Cultural Revolution, is the world's leading exponent of the art. Grandmaster Fung, who trained with him for more than 47 years, was his number one student.
  Grandmaster Fung majored in law and accountancy at Adelaide University and established his academy here in 1973.
  ...
  As word spread about his skills, Grandmaster Fung became the subject of countless media articles, television and radio programs. He wrote Wing Chun (published in 1981) and The Authentic Wing Chun Weapons (1984), and produced a teaching video, Wing Chun, in 1985.
3. Hallander, Jane (December 1983). "What Is Chi Sao?". Black Belt. Retrieved 2017-04-23.
  The article notes:
  A strong believer of chi sao training instructor Jim Fung of Adelaide, Australia. Fung started his wing chun training with the legendary Yip Man, Bruce Lee's original wing chun instructor. After Yip's death, Fung became a student of Tsui Seung Tin, one of Yip Man's instructors.
  Fung started teaching the art more than nine years ago in Australia. He now has three large schools there. His techniques are practical enough that he has instructed Australian police officers in the different facets of self-defense.
4. "The mind - can beat muscles". Gold Coast Sun. 2005-01-27. Archived from the original on 2017-04-23. Retrieved 2017-04-23.
  The article notes:
  The International Wing Chun Academy, in Surfers Paradise and Palm Beach, is founded by Grandmaster Jim Fung who has been training and teaching Wing Chun Kung Fu for more than 40 years and can trace direct lineage back to the founder of the system eight generations ago.
  Master Jim Fung's schools claim to be the first in martial arts with Austudy-approved tertiary courses.
  His school also is the only one in Australia recognised by the Chinese Martial Arts Council in its 1998 register.
5. Khalil, Shireen (2010-08-12). "Son fights in father's footsteps". Inner West Courier. Archived from the original on 2017-04-23. Retrieved 2017-04-23.
  The article notes:
  TRISTAN Fung used to sit in silence as a six-year-old watching his father Jim Fung train in a martial art that made him a household name.
  He is the son of a Wing Chun grandmaster whose passion led him to write Kung Fu history in Australia.
  ...
  The 24-year-old is now a senior instructor at his father's International Wing Chun Academy.
  Fung senior trained at the legendary Yip Man school in Hong Kong, the same training centre where influential martial artist Bruce Lee developed his skill.
  The reason he started is similar to a Karate Kid story: there was a bully involved. Fung's friend took down the bully instantly using Wing Chun, which then prompted Fung to learn self-defence.
  Fung, known for the one-inch punch, was trained by grandmaster Chu Shong Tin, Yip Man's third most senior instructor.
  But it wasn't until 1972 when Chinese martial arts gained popularity, mainly through Bruce Lee films, that Fung decided to open a permanent Wing Chun school in Australia. He died in 2007 from a rare head and neck cancer.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Jim Fung to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cunard, you wrote above "Fung became the subject of countless media articles", and you listed some examples. So how about you cite some of them in the article? At present the article has only one citation, to the Sydney Morning Herald, that helps to establish notability. Maproom (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cunard, That's exactly what I was thinking! LoL I spend ages looking for sources and found nothing... Cunard unless you add the sources and anymore the article should be deleted. Bare in mind Fung has never been a part of the Ving Tsun Athletic Association, you can check the site and see, not just promotional and kinda fraudulent. This is beside the point but nice to know anyway.(Australianblackbelt (talk) 07:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Striking "delete" vote since you are the AfD nominator and advocated for deletion in the AfD nomination. From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, "Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line."
Maproom (talk · contribs) and Australianblackbelt (talk · contribs), I have added the sources to the article.
Cunard (talk) 05:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you've added them to the reference list. It would be better if you could actually cite them in the article. Maproom (talk) 07:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard consider this before you keep working on the article... The new sources: Inner West Courier, Gold Coast Sun, and The Advertiser are local newspapers not national or state hence they are not enough to establish notability if local papers such as these were acceptable I my self would have written a dozen new articles on people. The 1983 "What Is Chi Sao?". Black Belt magazine article would more than likely be written by or co-written by Jim Fung as Chi Sao is his area of expertise, the name of the article asks the question and Jim Fung answers it. I have had many problems with co-written articles in martial arts magazine they are not accepted. I suggest finding national sources first before trying to redo the article to save time(Australianblackbelt (talk) 14:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

@Australianblackbelt: The comments you are replying to are from Maproom, not me. I just did some deletion sorting. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maproom Sorry about the "Delete" nom... The SMH article you said is acceptable is a paid obituary http://www.smh.com.au/comment/obituaries/death-notices-archives-and-reproductions-20120313-1uxqc.html?rand=1331611782716 It also states "His first book is sold internationally and remains the official handbook of the Ving Tsun Athletic Association in Hong Kong". This shows the article is paid and not researched as a proper journalist would do for a news story. See the Ving Tsun Athletic Association website... Jim Fung has never been a member let alone a permanent director http://www.vingtsun.org.hk/ (Australianblackbelt (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Comment about "paid obituary" assertion:
"Stephens honoured". The Sydney Morning Herald. 2009-11-27. Archived from the original on 2017-01-27. Retrieved 2017-01-27.
The article notes:
The recently retired Herald journalist Tony Stephens was awarded the most outstanding contribution to journalism for his 50 years in the industry. The Walkley trustees said Stephens was recognised for his skill, dedication and mentoring others.
The obituary was written by The Sydney Morning Herald's Tony Stephens. It is not a paid obituary.
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/obituaries/ says:
Obituaries are written by Herald staff or contributors, but we welcome information from relatives and friends. Contact the obituaries editor on (02) 9282 2509 or timelines@smh.com.au.
The Sydney Morning Herald is a newspaper of record. That it published a journalist written obituary about the subject strongly establishes the subject is notable.
Cunard (talk) 03:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes from the two obituaries:
The Sydney Morning Herald obituary said, "Fung, who has died at 62, became one of the best known martial artists in the world and a leading figure in Australia's Chinese business community."
The Advertiser obituary said, "As word spread about his skills, Grandmaster Fung became the subject of countless media articles, television and radio programs." This strongly establishes that he passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 03:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One obituary in the SMH is not strongly establishing notability... as far as it's content that's not so relevant seeing as it mentions Fung's role in Ving Tsun Athletic Association is completely false.. again as I said check the website yourself http://www.vingtsun.org.hk/ it is obvious Fung has never been a part of it. Wikipedia editors are supposed to do research ourselves, I for one have integrity in everything I do on here, do you?Cunard I appreciate your attempts to save this article.(Australianblackbelt (talk) 04:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

The 2007 obituary says, "Fung wrote two books, Wing Chun (1981) and The Authentic Wing Chun Weapons (1984), and produced a teaching video in 1985. His first book is sold internationally and remains the official handbook of the Ving Tsun Athletic Association in Hong Kong."

The source does not say that he is a part of Ving Tsun Athletic Association. The link to the organization's website does not demonstrate whether Fung's book was the association's official handbook in 2007.

Wikipedia editors are supposed to do research ourselves, I for one have integrity in everything I do on here, do you? – I do not do original research in articles per Wikipedia:No original research. I go by what the reliable sources say. I trust the integrity of sources like The Sydney Morning Herald. If you believe The Sydney Morning Herald is wrong, you can ask them to publish a correction.

Cunard (talk) 05:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its not what I believe its what is obvious, The official hand book is in English? when the organisation is Chinese the founder Ip Chun can't even speak english.... look at the article it self it says; Fung is also a permanent director of the Hong Kong Ving Tsun Athletic Association... Look on Fungs own website here https://www.wingchun.edu.au/future-students/why-choose-us This is what you choose to believe, I see the facts.... I don't know why you don't see my point are you affiliated to the club or the subject?

You're going to need to delete most of the content of the article based on what sources you have cause they dont cover whats written.(Australianblackbelt (talk) 07:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Although that one article is still not enough for notability regardless of who the journalist is.(Australianblackbelt (talk) 07:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

I don't know why you don't see my point are you affiliated to the club or the subject? – I am not affiliated with the club or the subject.

I am following the Wikipedia policies Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

From Wikipedia:Verifiability:

Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.

As I wrote above, "If you believe The Sydney Morning Herald is wrong, you can ask them to publish a correction."

With regard to your arguments against the official handbook, a possible explanation is that the book was translated from English into Chinese or that members of the group who understood English advocated for and succeeded in making the book the group's official handbook. There is no proof that The Sydney Morning Herald is wrong.

Cunard (talk) 05:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Official handbook, permanent director and pigs fly too mate lmfao(Australianblackbelt (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no valid argument put forward for deletion. Furthermore, the first three of Cunard's sources - two news obits and a short passage in an American martial arts magazine - above show that he meets WP:GNG. The latter two, as local press releases, not so much. Secondary points -

GNG requires the existence of sources, i.e. it doesn't need to be in the article for it to show that the subject meets the guideline. That they are provided here (with frankly excessive quotations) should render that point moot. If you have an issue with the number of references here and the lack of references in the article, feel free to add them yourself.
Obituaries can on occasion contain errors and typos. That doesn't necessarily mean that the source is completely unreliable and unusable. While I wouldn't use that source to verify that particular point, I would not mind using it as a source to show that a subject is notable or to verify less contentious facts about his life. His former academy states that his book was used as "official training manual of the Hong Kong Wing Chun Association", which is a different organisation altogether. Fuebaey (talk) 01:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then if this article is ok with just one acceptable source I have plenty of martial artists to write an article... (Australianblackbelt (talk) 05:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC))[reply]

The article is promotional and most of its content is not sourced, once the info that is not sourced is removed there will be very little remaining hence Cunard did not add the reference properly cause he can't then would need to delete most of it. (Australianblackbelt (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Maproom the reason I think that Cunard didn't add the references properly to the article is because there is very little that cause be referred back to the sources.(Australianblackbelt (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Keep Objections to the sources provided by @Cunard: are unconvincing. Those are independent and reliable, and so does pass WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:09, 8 May 2017 (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 Alias characters. Redirect after merge. (non-admin closure) f e minist 07:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Grace (Alias)[edit]

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

This article cites no reliable, second party sources and consists wholly of plot.

Comment - completing nomination for IP 71.178.164.227. ansh 666 19:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of Alias characters. Aoba47 (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect, fancruft in-universe plot with no indication of real world notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandro Pacciani[edit]

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

It would appear to me that this article fails any number of criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia

There is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject that I can find.
The article includes assertions that may support a WP:ANYBIO inclusion: "He also won a UNESCO (United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization) Award and his works were showcased at the ICA (Institute of Contemporary Arts) in London and SIGGRAPH." I cannot find any evidence to support these assertions.
While the subject of the article - and google searches indicate some of these assertions may well in fact be correct - "directed commercials for BMW, Mercedes, Ferrari, Audi, Jeep, Subaru, Nissan, Toyota, Acura, Honda, Nike, Samsung, Google, Universal" - simply having worked for these organizations (metaphorically invoking the WP:NOTINHERITED API call) does not indicate notability. Shirt58 (talk) 09:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of significant coverage in reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will add some works and reliable sources.Sayem15 (talk) 09:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Sayem[reply]
Delete - Blatantly promotional puff piece, which is not what Wikipedia is for. "He has black belt in merging live action and CG elements with a cinematic storytelling style." - Ah, I remember thumbing through the Encyclopaedia Britannica and reading exactly the same thing about Rudyard Kipling... Not really. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sadly. Notability awards exist for advertisers, would need to show those. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anju Tiwary[edit]

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

No-notable actor can't find any reliable sourses or coverage in the media about her or the work she has done, Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR FITINDIA (talk) 07:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA (talk) 08:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one significant role is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another wp:TOOSOON case. Has played only one role. The article says "She Will Comeback To Tv Very Soon". We should wait for her to meet the WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG criteria. --Skr15081997 (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Shipbuilding#Present day shipbuilding. I don't see much point in a relist; if someone wanted to create List of shipbuilding countries or some such they'd be free to do so. Mackensen (talk) 12:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shipbuilding countries[edit]

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

Outdated BobNesh (talk) 07:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article title is misleading and this is just a table of some stats for 2007. There is a smaller table for 2015 in Shipbuilding#Present day shipbuilding. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 5 May 2017 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Western Towboat Company[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete as "This article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as an article about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Note that educational institutions are not eligible under this criterion. See CSD A7.", but (ref article) "a fleet of 22 tugs and 7 barges" sounds to me like a substantially large waterfront work company. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Whatever the notability is, the article appears to be mostly copied from the company's About Us page. • Gene93k (talk) 04:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG and as Gene93k says, it is a copyvio of this page. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Available links and search results do little more than verify existence and contact information. No significant coverage in independent sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:15, 8 May 2017 (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) — Yash^talk stalk 08:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Catoosa County Library[edit]

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

This article should be deleted as it fails WP:GNG as it is not covered in reliable independent sources. A WP:BEFORE search found no non-trivial WP:RS for use in this article. It also fails WP:GEOFEAT as it is not covered substantially in reliable independent sources. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 15:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'll be honest this surprises me, you might as well AfD my entire stub list on my userpage if this isn't enough to meet stub quality. I've been told library systems meet inherent notability in the past by at least a half dozen NPPs who have patrolled my stubs (of worse quality than this page) and from the conclusions of a few AfDs on other library system pages I've seen result in keeps. Apologies if this isn't enough, I'm going to go back through all my old stubs and make them Start class once I finish Georgia as a whole. I was hoping my flawless track record with article creation would have given me the benefit of the doubt, but since not I'll go back and try and get some meaty references for you! SEMMENDINGER (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't really address the library as a structure, so WP:GEOFEAT isn't terribly relevant. More a case if it meets WP:ORG, I'd say. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know! Appreciate the insight. I just expanded the page, should meet GNG now. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Single library in a small county. Not notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sure it's a small library in a small county, but according to WP:ORGSIG places with a demonstrable effect on local history, culture, education, etc have some notability. The last sentence is why I direct you to that page. Not all public libraries have a Geneological and historical room, this one does. Would it be helpful to include more information about this room in the article to add more notability? I've already added secondary sources, per WP:ORGIND just looking for ways to help this process. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just not notable no matter what else you add. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't apologize, we simply disagree is all! I don't see how adding more good references can do anything bad for the article though, so this weekend I'll go get more secondary and tertiary sources. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It fails WP:GNG as it is not covered in reliable independent sources. I love libraries and small towns, but it fails to meet notability. In addition, given the advent of the internet, inexpensive e-books/Amazon Kindle, the argument that small, local libraries have inherent notability is a less powerful argument if Wikipedians informally indicated this in the past. Knox490 (talk) 04:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being a pain and commenting on everyone's votes but I want to improve as an editor and have my questions answered. In terms of your critique, how is this article not covered in reliable independent sources? Only 3 of my 15 sources are primary, the rest are secondary. Each secondary source is additionally published by a company unaffiliated with the local library. As for reliability, they are published by the county historical and genealogical societies for the most part. Again, unaffiliated with a library, but basically serving as the holy grail for county history information. Who else can be more reliable to find a history of the county, and thus the library, then the people who have collected all county documents since its founding? Thanks! SEMMENDINGER (talk) 16:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets GNG. Library systems are indeed usually notable, and other AFDs about them have affirmed that. It is good to have system-level articles, avoiding need to have separate articles about component library buildings or historic defunct libraries. This is like our having school district articles, to which new, marginal articles on elementary schools can be merged/redirected. In this case I like the history section provided.

I searched a bit and do not find there to have been any Carnegie library or other historic library building in Ringgold, or Fort Oglethorpe, or otherwise in Catoosa County. This is the go-to article about libraries in Catoosa County. We are lucky to have editor Semmendinger contributing. "Keep". --do ncr am 22:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it's not a "library system". It's a single library, the only one in a small county. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is recognized by the State of Georgia and the Georgia Public Library Service as a library system. This is more apparent from its history. Should they add another library branch as they had in the past it would belong in this article as this is the article for the system. Just like another page Easton Area Public Library is ostensibly named for one building but it still a library system. I agree that if this was an article about one library in Catoosa County it wouldn't meet GNG due to WP:GEO. But, as someone already said above, this isn't an article about a specific library and thus belongs in WP:ORG I'd edited the lead to reflect this confusion, perhaps I should have made it better known from the start but I figured it was fairly obvious from the wording already and from the rest of the article. Library systems don't have to have multiple branches, and thus that's just how these things are named. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 11:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as library systems are inherently notable and the article has been greatly expanded and referenced since this AfD was created. --pmj (talk) 13:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nice article. Can't think of a good reason to deprive readers of reliably sourced information about a public library. Station1 (talk) 06:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. Andrew D. (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There are two arguments made here for keeping this article, both of which are flawed. The first is that being a "major" candidate (whatever that means) for election in California is in itself grounds for notability. This is contradicted by WP:NPOL, which states that "an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability". I have therefore discounted !votes solely based on this argument.

The other argument is that her work in the autism advocacy makes her notable. I am seeing an implied argument that there are sources that cover this in detail, but no sources are presented in the discussion and User:Martinp and User:Bearcat make compelling and unanswered arguments as to why the sources in the article are not suitable for this purpose.

That being said, there are some suggestions for redirect which isn't really discussed in depth here. This close is therefore without prejudice against redirecting or merging some content to other articles if someone is willing to put in the work. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Emken[edit]

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

Notable for having come in 2nd place (with only 12.7% of the vote) in the June 2012 primaries against Dianne Feinstein, allowing her to advance to a runoff against Dianne Feinstein in November of 2012. Barely mounted a campaign, which resulted in a 25% loss margin. Conclusion: candidate fails WP:NPOL. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 13:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:NPOL. No other credible claim to notability. AusLondonder (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Emken was a major candidate for U.S. Senate in California, a state of 40 million people. I would also argue Emken is notable for her autism advocacy, and has received consistent coverage of this before, during, and after her campaign: [11], [12], [13], etc. MB298 (talk) 23:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The references you provide do NOT make her notable as an autism advocate. They make her notable as an Anti-vaxer. If Wikipedia had an article called List of anti-vaxers then she would definitely be notable enough to be mentioned in such a list. Note that other notable anti-vaxers, such as Jenny McCarthy have Wikipedia pages due to notability that does not involve their anti-vaxer positions. I would think that to get to be notable enough just as an Anti-vaxer, she would have to be as notable as Stephanie Messenger and Sherri Tenpenny in the anti-vaxer movement. --Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 07:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being a major party candidate who did not make a dent in the election (losing by 25%) means she fails WP:NPOL. The size of the state is irrelevant. --Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 07:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being an unelected candidate for office provides no notability per WP:NPOL. AusLondonder (talk) 23:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsuccessful candidates for political office not notable for any other reason are not notable per WP:NPOL's initial two criteria. The key test is whether she has major coverage across a variety of reliable and independent sources, which she does not. Four links are dead, and appeared to just be candidate aggregators. One (autism speaks) is not independent of her and the Los Angeles Times article is just noting her candidacy. The only meaningful part of the article is her work on Autism, which in itself doesn't appear notable and is essentially reliant on a single source. Maswimelleu (talk) 10:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A person does not get a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate in an election they didn't win — if you cannot show and properly source that she cleared another notability criterion for some other reason besides her candidacy, then she has to win the election, not just run in it, to get an article because of the election itself. But this does not properly source any evidence that she cleared GNG for her autism work; that entire section is referenced exclusively to primary sources, not reliable independent ones. And no, the fact that she ran and lost in a Senate race rather than a House of Reps seat does not automatically make her candidacy more notable than the norm — a Senate candidate has a better chance of either already having enough preexisting notability to qualify for an article or having her coverage expand beyond the WP:ROUTINE and expected norm that all candidates for all offices always get, but there's still no automatic inclusion freebie for all non-winning candidates at that level of office: it's still WP:GNG or bust. Bearcat (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the strong consensus here seems to be delete, so I'd propose redirect to United States Senate election in California, 2012 as it was before I restored the article, in order for the history to be preserved. MB298 (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am less inclined to keep the article merely because of the subject's candidacy. I am more inclined to keep it because of her advocacy. Wikipedia is full of citizen advocates who are or were helping to blaze new awareness of certain ideas (see Bernard Rimland and others). While I disagree with her opinions within her advocacy, there is no doubting that she was advocating in ways which made Autism Speaks both admired and despised by many others worldwide. And it is that effective advocacy that has earned the subject broad attention, influence and notability.73.131.228.245 (talk) 11:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What matters, for the purposes of getting a Wikipedia article, is whether that advocacy earned her reliable source coverage in media. But whether she did or not, this version of the article isn't showing any evidence of it — so in order to be kept on the grounds of her advocacy, the article's sourcing would still have to be massively overhauled. Bearcat (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the coverage subject has received solely for her advocacy on Autism. Cllgbksr (talk) 21:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine, if anybody were showing any actual evidence that she's received coverage for her advocacy on autism. We can't just assume that such coverage probably exists; somebody has to actually show that it does exist, preferably by actually adding it to the article before this discussion closes but at least showing hard data from a real research effort in this discussion — but we can't simply assume that the necessary degree of coverage exists if nobody shows any evidence of it. Bearcat (talk) 02:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to her autism advocacy, but source the material and move the election material farther down the article. Who was the second person to climb Mt. Everest? My point is that people don't remember 2nd place finishers and her election loss does not make her notable.Knox490 (talk) 07:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't showing any evidence of reliable source coverage about her autism advocacy. Being an activist is not an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of enough media coverage for her activism to clear WP:GNG, but none is being shown — all we've seen so far is simple assertions that such coverage might exist somewhere that nobody's shown evidence of. Bearcat (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As others have said, her political activities are not themselves notable. It was then raised that she might have sufficient notability as an autism advocate/anti-vaxer. However, the 3 concrete references raised (by MB298) treat this only as passing mentions, not enough to write a reasonable article on the subject. I looked around for a few minutes on Google and didn't find other sources. So I conclude that she doesn't quite reach notabillity in that vein either. Therefore suggest deleting, without prejudice to recreation at some point in the future if enough material on her to establish notability, for instance on anti-vax or anything else, appears. Martinp (talk) 01:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Same reason for me: "Emken was a major candidate for U.S. Senate in California, a state of 40 million people." --Seneca Quayle (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2017 (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. CSD G7 – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Globy Tucose[edit]

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

No references and so not verifiable. Google search finds no hits on this name, making it possibly a hoax or just invented. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced and unverifiable article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:14, 30 April 2017 (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. At this point the article now includes a number of secondary sources. I think it's beyond the scope of my duty here to evaluate the reliability of these sources, but the has article has been relisted twice now and I don't think the level of discussion warrants an extraordinary third relist. A Train^talk 17:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One More Light Tour[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

AFAIK, after a brief google search, I have determined that the entire tour is not covered in multiple independent reliable sources. Template ((2p)) was placed at the top of the page twice, but was also twice removed. As of now, there are still no sources outside of "linkinpark.com" in the article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- At least for now. If the tour goes ahead and is verified by external sources, I see no issue in the article being amended and launched again. Clawsyclaw (talk) 08:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Let me expand the article and add external reliable sources to the article. NotNITINChopra · ^{[ Poke ]} 10:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @NotNitinChopra:, thank you for your efforts. I am also willing to entertain a merge if the community agrees. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found a number of sources: [14] [15] [16]. The table would look unwieldy if merged into the album article. f e minist 11:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @Feminist:, the three sources are not in depth, nor are they currently in the article. Again, I will support a merge in order to keep the history in tact, but we have got to have better independent referencing. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator - As of April 29, 2017, there are still no in-depth secondary nor tertiary sources in the article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not up to you to decide, right? f e minist 11:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @Feminist:, exactly! --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A few articles announcing an upcoming tour are routine coverage and not notable IMO. The existence of sources are what determines notability, not the condition and sources in the current article. From what I've seen so far the subject fails WP:NTOUR. Gab4gab (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am currently in the process of gathering information to expand the article and correct its known issues. I estimate I should have this completed by 11 May 2017. 50.155.157.164 (talk) 07:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Please review the article, I've expanded it adding a few sources to it. NotNITINChopra · ^{[ Poke ]} 03:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)— Duplicate vote: NotNitinChopra (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]
Merge; as discussed above the sources presented are insubstantial routine coverage sort of stuff. Definitely worth keeping this information, but in the album article where it belongs. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. The additional sources demonstrate the notability of the subject. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Paul[edit]

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

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

Per WP:BLP1E. The only media coverage of the subject pertains to his prison sentence for involvement in a bomb plot. Lizard (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While some people can be notable for convinction of bombing plots, there is not the widespread coverage to move this beyond the rules of not news.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I forgot to mention the conviction's insignificance. Lizard (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nom does not appear to have performed WP:BEFORE searches; I had no trouble locating subject in books and major media. Sources abound, from the year of his arrest through a 2017 book.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and WP:TROUT Nom for failing to perform the most cursory WP:BEFORE. Here's the NY Times article on the indictment [17]. Reuters on the guilty plea [18]. gBook hits on "Christopher Paul" + "al qaeda" [19] Sheesh.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I added a few sources, including a university press book with an entire chapter on Paul (Chapter 5). It provides a detailed biography form which a better article can be written.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

a very modest WP:HEYMANN, I did a very modest upgrade, adding sources about his life and career. Note that sources including including a new book out from Brookings this spring satisfies WP:PERSISTENCE and sources including a book by Larry Elder criticizing Paul Law's poor life choices carry it past WP:GNG. Also Note that "Christopher Paul" is only one of the names he uses, his birth name and faith names produce other sources from which a good article could be created.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per E.M Gregorys reasonings. and WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 22:10, 8 May 2017 (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MapmyIndia[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH Ajf773 (talk) 07:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 07:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 07:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Mapmyindia has received adequate coverage to pass WP:CORPDEPTH, e.g., [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25], in The Hindu, The Times of India etc. — Stringy Acid (talk) 09:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's look at those:

[26] - decent coverage

[27] - this has no byline, it's about another product that has a strong tie to the subject, and it's likely a press release.

[28] - trivial mention, routine financial announcement

[29] - no byline except "special correspondent". This is a press release.

[30] - another press release by a "special correspondent", likely someone associated with the company.

[31] - not coverage of MapmyIndia, it's about Ola, and basically amounts to a trivial mention.

Except for that first one, I'm not seeing anything conferring notability here. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist: The list of sources I mentioned is most definitely not an exhaustive list (I don't even understand what gave such an impression). If you want even more in-depth coverage, you could've found it yourself in the time you took to analyze the (very preliminary) list of sources I provided. Here's two from The Hindustan Times, another from India Today, yet another from Daily News and Analysis, even more from Live Mint, one from Firstpost, an interview in the Business Standard, and even more can be found. If this article doesn't pass WP:CORPDEPTH, I don't know which would. — Stringy Acid (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are considered WP:Primary sources and cannot count toward notability. The same is true for press releases and PR pieces. You must also take care not to confuse WP:Significant coverage of the company with significant coverage of the product or the founder. It may be better to re-cast the article as about the product rather than about the company, if the product is getting more press than the company.

The first one you mention above from Hindustan Times is OK, the second one is a generic article about GPS navigation that merely mentions the company instead of covering it in depth. The India Today piece is basically an interview, and a brief one at that. DNA India is a press release, likely written by a company representative or a journalist paid to write it. The LiveMint article is a product review, not coverage of the company. First Post is an interview. The Business Standard one is an interview. These don't constitute WP:CORPDEPTH.

@Anachronist: By the way, you seem to be also confused with the usage of "special correspondent" in Indian newspapers, which just means someone employed by the newspaper to write a special piece. E.g., see the articles mentioning "special correspondent" in The Hindu. — Stringy Acid (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not confused. When an article reads like a PR piece, it's clear that the "special correspondent" was paid to write a PR piece. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Coverage in reliable sources are easily found as shown by Stringy Acid. Meets notability. -- Whpq (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources presented by Stringy Acid are sufficient to pass WP:CORPDEPTH --Kostas20142 (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per google news received significant media coverage. References need to add as per WP:FIXIT --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Google hits are not a gauge for notability. A company can have a lot of mentions (see above) and still fail Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move to draft space per my analysis of the sources above. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Consider also [32], [33], and [34]. --Whpq (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews don't count. That first one is OK though, as I mentioned above. The article is nearly blank now due to copyright infringement. If not deleted, it belongs in draft space for now. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the sources immediately above are most likely PR driven; the article is not suitable for inclusion at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: as someone, who is still new to many rules/policies of WP, may I ask why you think the sources I cited are "most likely PR driven"? I mean, I don't have any particular affinity towards this particular article or company, but do you think that PR drive from a single company can convince so many newspapers in India (some of them with over a million circulation) to continue covering it for a long time? — Stringy Acid (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. the article was intended as an advertisement, and the sources do look like PR. DGG ( talk ) 17:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I started writing my comment for delete, but after reviewing sources I have graduated to weak keep. Yes, even [35] doesn't have much - a quote from the company director, a brief description of service. Granted, the coverage is better than for most tiny startups, but is there anything that's not business as usual? Keep in mind WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. That's what I told myself, but then I looked at coverage in scholarly works and books. It is sparse but it is there.[36] looked promising but it is a master thesis and the quality if the tiny MMI paragraph suggests it was copied almost verbatim from some promotional brochure....). Still, Shreyasi Singh (28 October 2016). The Wealth Wallahs: The Story of India's New Wealthy and the company that built itself on managing their riches. Bloomsbury Publishing. pp. 49–. ISBN 978-93-86141-97-2. seems to describe it as 'leading' company in its sector. And John Mullins (3 July 2014). The Customer-Funded Business: Start, Finance, or Grow Your Company with Your Customers' Cash. Wiley. pp. 230–. ISBN 978-1-118-87913-9. seems to describe it as India's go-to company for this sector. Taken all together, I think this app / service has enough notability to get an entry here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LSI (Financial Services)[edit]

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

Article is written like an advertisement.
Recently created article by indefinitely blocked editor with no contributions by other users. Widgetsz89 (talk) 05:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete if for no other reason, does not meet GNG. Dlohcierekim 05:43, 30 April 2017 (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. So Why 13:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keith L. Huff[edit]

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

Non-notable film producer. Google search turns up only the listed unreleased film (which appears to be self-published). Robert McClenon (talk) 05:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence that any of the subjects work has even been released, let alone received sufficient coverage to make them notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject lacks notability and the article lacks reliable sources. Bmbaker88 (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Prasuton Manorah. MBisanz ^talk 12:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prasuton Manorah (TV series)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsourced since 2008. Significant RS coverage not found. The latest AfD (Feb 2017) closed as no consensus for lack of participation; hoping that this discussion can arrive at a consensus. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage in online reliable sources. Also, I do not find any evidence of this actually being covered in an ancient Thai newspaper from 15 years ago. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thai newspapers do not keep news article online that long. Thailand's number one newspaper gives 3 pages of matches for news between 2000-2005 [37] while the number 2 newspaper gives only one match for the above date [38]. As mentioned in earlier AfD's, you have to go to National Library to look at paper form of newspaper or microfilm of it to find news article about this TV series. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 14:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename article should be renamed to Prasuton Manorah (currently a redirect to a different variant of the story) with main emphasis on the folktale (as suggested in the 2nd AfD). The story is notable (see centuries old painting of the story at [39]) and has been adapted to TV series at least 3 times: the one in the article (broadcast in 2000-2001), a newer one in 2016 ([40]), a version in 1988, and likely more (I only recognize those broadcast since my childhood and am not aware of versions before that). --Lerdsuwa (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The target should probably be Phra Suthon Manora, following RTGS, since there's no evidence that the current spelling is used by anyone not referring to the TV soap. I'd prefer that the histories be kept separate, though, and a new article be created from scratch. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just merge into a sentence or two at Manohara mentioning the Thai TV adaptations' existence. This series of AfDs is getting unnecessarily repetitive, and no one seems to be interested in creating the Thai folktale article. Can be redirected there when and if it is created. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --- the article on the folk tale already exists: Prasuton Manorah. There's nothing to merge since the article under discussion is unsourced. K.e.coffman (talk) 13:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no RS sources and not needed, per nom. Kierzek (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2017 (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 considered relisting again but with two relists proving only one new !vote, I don't see how another relist could have helped here. WP:NPASR applies. So Why 12:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dayanidhi Paramahansa Dev[edit]

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

Only two news articles appear on Google news. Does not appear to meet notability guidelines albeit WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Davidbuddy9Talk 07:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, f e minist 03:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't know why Goggle News is your criteria. Most of the sources are offline, but one of them is to a entire book about him, Rāmakṛṣṇa Paramahaṁsa: A Psychological Profile. I'm assuming he is Rāmakṛṣṇa Paramahaṁsa (I believe so, I think that "Rāmakṛṣṇa" is an honorific). An entire book... and it is published by Brill Publishers, a large international outfit with an article here... so that would meet WP:GNG right there, having a book about you published by Brill.

And there are 17 sources in the article, a fair number. Most of them are offline and I can't see them. This one is used to ref "was an Indian sadguru, yogi, mystic and a Hindu spiritual leader well known in India". It refers to "Shri Ramakrishna Paramhamsa" which I guess is him, in which case he is one name in a list of authors which the writer says influenced him. This one is used to ref "associated with the shakti cult and viewed as a perfect spiritual master of gyan, yoga and prema or bhakti". If he is the "Purnanada Parhamhamsa" mentioned here which I guess he is, he's mentioned in passing but described as the author of an important work. Not much, but mentions like this add up in my book.

He is asserted to be "well known in India" and wrote some books, also achieved perfection and visited nirvana. And these statements are ref'd, although I have to mostly trust that they're good refs. But the main thing is the book about him. Herostratus (talk) 06:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AppsDesignLab[edit]

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

Non-notable software, failing WP:PRODUCT as no coverage in independent, third-party reliable sources. The only sources are either self-sourced, WP:PRIMARY, zines/blogs/storefronts, or social media, including YouTube, Twitter, etc. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 08:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable software per WP:N. SL93 (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article lacks significant content and lacks credible sources. Bmbaker88 (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:07, 3 May 2017 (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 Microsoft Surface. There is no real consensus on whether the subject passes GNG, and if it does, whether it's enough to override CRYSTAL in this case. However, a merge was proposed and agreed to by the article creator, so that seems like the best course of action. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 00:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Surface phone[edit]

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

Article is based entirely on speculations and rumours. Looks like a clear case of WP:CRYSTALBALL. Indrek (talk) 06:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree too soon. A fan might volunteer to take it into user space until it gets announced and has more reliable press, or at least enough sources to have a notability argument. W Nowicki (talk) 21:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A fan might volunteer to take it into user space I'll drop a note on the page author's talk page, but they appear to have ragequit so I'm not sure if they'll even read it. Indrek (talk) 07:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~i'll take it into holding in mine, if he's not around. we'll need it sooner or later, most likely. no need to start from scratch.~~ -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 18:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is too soon, since it is planned for 2019 it is possible it will be canceled. --Frmorrison (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wayyy too far out. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 22:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – WP:CRYSTAL states, "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred". This anticipated event is virtually certain to occur, and the subject matter is of obvious wide interest, as per the many global news sources that have covered this topic. As such, the topic passes WP:GNG. See below for some source examples; additional sources are available. Another option is to draftify the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Express
International Business Times
The Science Times
The Science Times
Latin Post
Viet Times (In Vietnamese)
Tom's Guide
The Times of India
The Times of India
Indian Express
Christian Today
Travelers Today
The Christian Post
Express
Christian Post
First Post – "Surface Phone expected in 2019"
University Herald
The Science Times
The Register
Express
The Christian Post
PC Advisor
Network World
Fox News

Keep. Thesources discussing it are quite sufficient. As a proposed vey significant product line from a famous company, it would probably be a notable project even if nothing comes of it. DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist for further evaluation of sources found by Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I started the article but would like this article to be kept I think in my view it has a lot of potential just like the other Microsoft Surface articles. Although it hasn't yet been released its in the pipeline to be released and its better to have it created now than later and the admin above North America provided far more references than I could find on the web which is good in my view... I would eventually like to continue expanding the article with the help of others but at the moment its stalled due to the deletion template. Regards, StewartLittle 07:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the deletion template does not mean the article cannot be edited. The notice even explicitly says "Feel free to edit the article". Indrek (talk) 07:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding the sources above, as far as I can see, they mainly say that Microsoft might be working on a device that might resemble a smartphone and might bear the Surface brand. There's no concrete evidence that anything of the sort is actually being developed or will ever be released, and I have to disagree with the above assertion that "This anticipated event is virtually certain to occur".

I do agree that the subject, speculative as it is, is noteworthy, and probably some mention of it might be in order for, say, Microsoft Surface. But a separate article? As said above - too soon. There is simply no encyclopaedic information about it available right now, everything in the article as of the writing of this is pure speculation (even the infobox image is, unless I'm mistaken, a fan-made concept render). Taking it to userspace seems like the best course of action, if there are people willing to work on the article. Indrek (talk) 07:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for the spreading of rumors. The Surface Phone has not been confirmed officially by Microsoft - all of the "sources" posted above to back up keeping the article are simply speculation pieces, many of which are from sites that do not hold much credibility in the technology world. The image used on the article is a concept render, not an authentic photograph of the device. There are claims in this article that are straight up lies. This for example - "It was availabile for a purchase in 2017" - is completely false. This article should be deleted and if the time arises where there is credible information regarding the aforementioned device, then it may be recreated. MikeMeowz (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. We cannot just create article based on rumored upcoming events with no verifiable sources. The fact of the matter is, none of the verifiable news sources can confirm that the Surface Phone (if it's even called that) exists, nor have they seen one. Once the product is announced, we can add a long paragraph with all those sources in the Annonuncement section stating that it was long-rumored, because the existence of rumors can be verified, but not the rumors themselves until the product is announced officially or cancelled. If it is cancelled like the Surface Mini, and a verifiable news source can vouch for the product's existence, then that content could be verifiable. WikIan -(talk) 14:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go again - let's see how stare decisis works out in this case. Take a look at the case of this recent case regarding the Samsung Galaxy S8, which I put into the same hot seat a couple of months back. That was closed as kept as the consensus there, according to J947, was that GNG overrides CRYSTALBALL. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, an extremely strong case of GNG overrides a weak case of CRYSTALBALL, doesn't it? J 947^{^{^(c)}} 18:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- there's nothing encyclopedically relevant in the article at this time; sample copy includes: Some critics have complained about the delay in the phone being announced -- seriously? I would have expected much more if the subject of this upcoming (possibly) phone were notable. I don't see it here just yet. No objection to recreation once the phone is officially announced. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article was double-relisted on 29 March, which caused it to be commented out of that day's log page due to a script bug. Fixed now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Finngall ^talk 04:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Consensus is that GNG overrides CRYSTALBALL as this passes GNG and per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Samsung_Galaxy_S8
Merge and redirect to Microsoft Surface. "rumoured". "Microsoft is yet to make an official announcement for the Surface Phone. Its release has reportedly been delayed". It fails WP:V. Too soon. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – In addition to my !vote above, I also support a merge to Microsoft Surface. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Northamerica's sources. Failing that, would prefer merging to deletion. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep (or merge. that's good too) meets WP:GNG. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 04:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note I've placed a request here for the article to be merged into Microsoft Surface I'll support the recreation of the article if the phone has been announced but since Microsoft has recently had a major hardware announcement they still haven't yet confirmed its existence. Then I think the best course is to merge both articles together....Stewart Little (talk) 11:34, 4 May 2017 (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. So Why 12:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Rivera (lawyer)[edit]

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

This article should be deleted because it's just advertising (i.e. Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content).

There are no working links on the article other than to a general florida bar page that every lawyer has. This guy is not newsworthy or notable and he certainly does not deserve his own wikipedia page. Wikipedia should be for information not self-promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edmonddantes77 (talk • contribs) 15:07, March 1, 2017 (UTC)

Comment This discussion page was created by a new account with no other edits, without the proper template, and was never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I offer no other opinion on the nomination itself at this time. 04:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 04:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 04:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 04:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete No reliable sources at all. The first source is just a listing that shows his firm exists. Clealry comes no where close to passing the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found a mere mention in a bbc article. Does not meet WP:BIO. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject lacks notability. Bmbaker88 (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my standards for lawyers. Bearian (talk) 03:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:26, 8 May 2017 (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 03:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Thomas (musician)[edit]

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

No evidence that this musician is in any way notable. Refs include programme notes, a blog, and own web-site - nothing here that is truly independent and reliable. No doubt an excellent musician but not yet notable. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are insufficient to indicate notability, being blogs, zines and shops, so fails WP:ANYBIO; nut his accomplishments are, so far, also insufficient to pass WP:MUSICBIO- no major tours, reviews, chart hits, awards, etc. A WP:BEFORE indicates no independent, third party coverage in reliable sources; fails WP:ANYBIO. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 15:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are more hits for the golfer Justin Thomas at events that included music than this JustinThomas (Vibes). I did find some coverage although it's all just his name listed as one of a performing group: [41] [42] [43] [44] Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Gab4gab (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject doesn't appear to be in any way notable for a musician who has been around for the length of time stated by the author. Fails WP:MUSICBIO —User4495 (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject lacks notability. Bmbaker88 (talk) 22:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO MassiveYR ♠ 00:01, 3 May 2017 (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. So Why 12:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pow Animation Studio[edit]

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

Prod removed with a non-policy related rationale (which can be seen on the article's talk page), and with no improvement. Virtually no in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to have help editing this page, rather then it being deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterJohnson123 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The issue is I've done searches on Google News, Google Newspapers, Google Books, Google Scholars, Highbeam, and JSTOR, and come up with virtually zero to show it passes notability. To show notability, you need to have in-depth sourcing from independent, reliable sources. You might be better served to ask to have this moved to draftspace, and then submit it through the AfC (Articles for Creation) process, as you find those type of sources. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And fyi, imdb is not a reliable source. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no independent, reliable sourcing. Has not produced any notable titles; just an unremarkable private company going about its business. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Subject has produced notable works. I'm currently working on finding more. Please give me some time. PeterJohnson123
Keep -- There's quite a lot of info on Bing about their films− I think they are a credible entity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.88.55.177 (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really there was no need to relist this--might as well have closed it as delete since a. there are no reliable sources proving notability, and b. there are no valid "keep" arguments that provide evidence and policy-based rationales. At any rate, I support deletion. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I still consider this a credible article because there are plenty of sources. I'm just a terrible writer. We need someone to write it properly. PeterJohnson123 (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If this Amazon link is the only source, the writing is not the first problem. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to find more sources. Can you give me an example of good sources? PeterJohnson123 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - [45] Drmies (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2017 (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.