Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 16 May	18 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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. Extended BLP-violating coatrack in an election year. This event might be a basis for an appropriately-written article, but it is unsalvageable within Wikipedia policy as written. Originating editor ~~warned~~ blocked for abusing Wikipedia for editorializing. Acroterion (talk) 00:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump's Mar-A-Lago Barack Obama Assassination Plot Investigation

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

Per previous PROD by SisterTwister: "Still suggests questionability for WP:EVENT and WP:GNG, nothing suggesting it's own long lasting independent notability."

Additionally: author shows no intention of adhering to WP:NPOV, continuing to add blatant editorializing content after being informed of policy. Falls under WP:DEL14 as WP:BLOG and/or WP:SOAP. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 23:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VOTE KEEP!!!!! A) Death Threats against Presidents are Notable (other assassination attempts or threatened attempts get articles) B) Threats made by the right-hand man of a candidate are doubly so C) I have tried to remove the suggested problems you pointed out. Your comment of "no intention" is plainly unfair. I already made most of the changes you suggested on the talk page already, and I will go back and double-check that I have removed all of the remarks which you did not enjoy. D)You are welcome to edit the article; it belongs to all of us (indeed, to History, now.) Why do my "intentions" even matter? What matters is that we leave as much of a historical record as possible to future generations. If we have room for 10 million Reality TV star articles, we can afford an article on The Republican Nominee's personal servant's plot to kill the president. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crack Cocaine Aficionado (talk • contribs) 00:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I still confirm my PROD, nothing convincing to keep, still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 00:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 12:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G. Michael Hopf

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. ubiquity (talk) 23:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - His notability seems to be established from The New World but the page definitely needs additional sources for verification. Meatsgains (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I'm convinced by DGG, this can be improved. Delete as I found nothing convincingly better, nothing to suggest the necessary notability. Notifying DGG for subject analysis. SwisterTwister talk 20:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Relatively minor novelist, but since it'sSF there are pretty sure to be reviews. Published by Plume, the prestige imprint of Penguine B ooks. They wouldn't be publishing a whie series unless thedy were wqyuite popular. DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep His novels have a following, as DGG says publishers don't keep this up unless there are sales, and he does get hits on a news google search [1]. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The only "keep" argument is from a block-evading sockpuppet, and in any case it merely says "I don't think it fails WP:TOOSOON", without any attempt to explain why. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saila Kariat

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

Declined WP:PROD. Subject is obviously not notable per the general notability guidelines. —Wasell^(T) 14:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 15:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 15:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 15:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think it fails WP:TOOSOON.--Musa Talk 16:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the film as it seems to be best connected there, still currently questionable for own article. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you. She have won three awards which shows notability and good sources are also provided even before release of her debut film. There is no doubt that she can become more notable after release of the film so there is no need to delete or redirect it.--Musa Talk 08:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This looks like a clear WP:TOOSOON to me... I'd support keeping it in a few months, when her film is out. That said, I'm willing to be convinced otherwise... Musa Raza, would you please explain why you feel that this article is not covered by WP:TOOSOON? Fieari (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Forget notability, there is no credible claim of significance in this article. The movie she is directing has not been released. The cited award is a university award, which numerous universities give out every year. The other 3 IBM awards seem to be internal company awards which she got while she was working there. At this point, she wouldn't pass WP:GNG,WP:PROF or WP:DIRECTOR. This is way too soon. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. After 15 days and relisting, the consensus is to delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Frank

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 07:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know anything about hockey, but isn't the Elite Ice Hockey League an "an existing or defunct top professional league"? If so, ~~keep~~ would make sense on those grounds. Intelligentsium 00:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:NHOCKEY/LA, the EIHL is a "Lower-level league." He fails NHOCKEY. Joeykai (talk) 06:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? That essay was written in 2014, and the article on the EIHL says "Formed in 2003 following the demise of the Ice Hockey Superleague, it is the highest level of ice hockey competition in the United Kingdom". It sounds "professional" and the "highest level extant" to me. Intelligentsium 10:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am sure. According to WP:NHOCKEY/LA, the EIHL is a lower-level league "for the purpose of satisfying criterion #4." Criterion #4 of NHOCKEY is "achieved preeminent honors" and he has achieved no honors. He fails NHOCKEY. Joeykai (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, deferring to your topic knowledge, I !vote delete. Intelligentsium 22:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only 18 games of AHL experience, and his time in the EIHL is of no consideration given the low level of play of that league. Deadman137 (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as apart from the teams he played with, he's still questionable for solid independent notability as an article. SwisterTwister talk 06:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 14:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Broadhurst

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

IOBDb is a trivial mention of the subject, as is the Doollee.com reference. IMDb is not independent. Searches for additional significant (non-trivial) coverage in reliable independent secondary sources turned up fruitless. Having written a screenplay for a television program does not qualify a person as notable. KDS4444^Talk 02:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's possible that he would squeak by. The TV movie he wrote won an award for Best TV Movie or Miniseries and was nominated for another Best TV Movie award: [2]. There's this mention in a book commending his acting: [3]. At least one of his several plays was listed as one of the best plays of 1982-1983: [4]. It's possible an assiduous Google & GoogleBooks search could turn up more. Given the combination of his talents and accolades, that may put him over the edge. He's in a "who's who" of theater, film, TV: [5]. Six months ago another editor and I cleaned up the article, which was formerly very long and promotional, but we didn't feel it merited deletion. Softlavender (talk) 03:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Okay. The appearance in the best plays of '82-'83 looks to me to be only a trivial mention that doesn't say much (or really anything) about him personally; the bit about him in the acting book looks to be only a part of a paragraph "about an actor I know who got a small part in a big movie"; the award mentioned for his tv series doesn't appear to be be on the page given, but it looks like you are talking about the PRISM Award that the series got (which would contribute to a notability claim for the series...) or the Aurora Gold Award (which also went to the series, but not its writer), though neither of these awards appears to be notable. I agree that there might possibly be enough here for a notability claim, but the evidence is thin. I still can't find any discussion of him in independent reliable sources, which is my biggest concern. Without that, I don't think a genuine notability claim can be supported. KDS4444^Talk 06:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When determining the notability of a creative, their entire body of work confers notability, not just discussions of the person themselves. I think there's a case to be made that his TV movie (not a series) winning the Prism Award and being nominated for the Satellite Award is the strongest contention of notability, and when combined with the other mentions and accolades, could confer sufficient notability, especially if something else were found. However I'm not sufficiently convinced right now to !vote, and I lack sufficient interest to do any further research at present. Softlavender (talk) 06:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More research: the Aurora Awards pretty clearly seem to be an awards mill: they give out more than 200 awards twice a year and charge each entrant for their submissions (and winners must also pay for their awards statue). The Satellite award is a real award—- though the subject did not receive one. If he were genuinely notable, it shouldn't be so difficult to find evidence of that notability in the form of discussion of him non-trivially in reliable independent secondary sources: people who receive notable awards typically end up being interviewed by journalists and their bodies of work become the subject of newspaper articles, magazines, and books. I am just not finding any of that for this person. KDS4444^Talk 09:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you are talking about Aurora awards; the film won the Prism award. I think having a movie one wrote win a best film award is good; but it is borderline. Again, I'm not !voting, just discussing. Softlavender (talk) 11:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing suggesting solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator. I have also searched for some sources and cannot find much coverage. ツStacey (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/question Does anyone have an idea of what the PRISM awards are? I found dozens of awards with that name. The only one I see related to entertainment is this. No idea if these awards confer notability. LaMona (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LaMona: Prism Awards, overseen by industry leaders have been given since 1997 by Entertainment Industries Council in collaboration with FX Network and others. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in refining the search:

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

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

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

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

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

Keep as an expandable/improvable stub and simply tag for needed work, as the recognition of his works appears to meet WP:ANYBIO and the length and recognition depth of his career in film, television and theatre look to meet WP:ENT #1 & WP:CREATIVE. Sad that he has not been subject of headlines, but WP:SUBSTANTIAL is not a mandate and not the issue under WP:BASIC which tells us "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". Time to read the books and do some work, not to delete. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More time to consider MichaelQSchmidt's opinion. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ran a Proquest archives search, 147 hits. I scanned the first page (50 articles) They were all about this Kent Broadhurst (not usual in this sort of search) and they appeared to offer everything needed to write a pretty good WP bio: review of his work as an actor and as a playwright, of parties in his honor, alumni award from his college, ample to establish notability. And I didn't even look at the next 50 hits in the search.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the large number of sources identified above that allow WP:BASIC to be passed and should hopefully be used to expand the article. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selimiye Hatun

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

This seems to be another fictitious member of the Ottoman dynasty, perhaps created after a matching (fictional) character. She is not mentionned in academic books like Cagatay Ulucay's Padisahlarin Kadinlari ve Kizlari, Alderson's Structure of the Ottoman Dynasty or Peirce The Imperial Harem: Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire, nor even in popular personal website Royal Ark. The prince of whom she's the alledged mother existed, but it seems we simply have no information on his mother. The article on Turkish wikipedia is adorned with a collection of templates that leaves little hope about its survival in normal conditions. Phso2 (talk) 19:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any evidence of her on JSTOR or google scholar. Even if she did exist, being the consort of a sultan is not sufficient to demonstrate notability. (The articles on both Selim II and Mihrimah Sultan both mention Selimiye Hatun, but neither of them provide any sources whatsoever, and indeed in the latter article when information on her was removed for being unsourced, it was reinstated with the explanation "Look at the Selimiye Hatun page"). Delete unless anyone can come up with a source. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as, although apparently from several centuries ago, there's particularly nothing actually suggesting the needed independent notability for an own article thus nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 07:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've also checked the Turkish Wikipedia, which is just as short as this article, also without references. st170e^talk 12:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 14:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Faith and Public Life

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

Another in the series of "Jesuit service centres" articles. Non notable organization, fails WP:BEFORE. References in article are largely published by unreliable sources or by related religious entities, making them non-independent. Promotional tone not supported by references. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's particularly nothing for independent notability for the university, nothing at best minimally better for its own article. Inviting DGG for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 07:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. promotional articles about on-campus center in small university; no reason to expect notability, and no notability to be found. DGG ( talk ) 18:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A clear consensus after two weeks and relisting. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Arshakyan

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As mentioned, fails WP:GNG. Was also created by an account that is now blocked. DrDevilFX (talk) 07:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 07:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's nothing for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 14:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Kupfer

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

fails WP:BIO. ambassadors are not inherently notable. Gets a few mentions in routine coverage as an ambassador but lacking in depth coverage where he is the subject. There is also an astronomer of the same name. LibStar (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this could imaginably be acceptable, but there's nothing for the needed convincing independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO. Tom29739 ^[talk] 07:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Computrols Incorporated

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

Article exists since 2007 and not a single secondary sources was provided all those years. Fails WP:CORP. Muhandes (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this does not pass WP:GNG from searching materials online. The article also had WP:CHANCE and nothing has happened to gather reliable sources to support it. $Tushi Talk To Me$ 17:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all convincing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no independent reliable sources that indicate this corporation (or company) is notable. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 16:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IBM OLIVER (CICS interactive test/debug)

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

Lack of relevant references. Searched for sources, could not find anything substantial which was not dependent on Wikipedia. Contested PROD. SJK (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Where did you search for sources? This is a 1970s piece of technology so a lack of any online references does not indicate a lack of notability. ~Kvng (talk) 22:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Lack of current sources is not cause for deletion when sources are expected to exist. The only issue here is that those sources are certainly going to be print-only, due to the subject at hand. This seems inherently notable to me, as a part of computing history. Sources needed, but I'm sure they exist. Alas, I'm not in a place where I can go hunt them out... I wonder if archive.org's library has some computing magazines from the day that might mention it? Fieari (talk) 01:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I looked extensively for online sources (Google, Google News, Google Books, Google Scholar, IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library), and–putting aside Google Books snippet view, which I'll get to in a moment–I couldn't find any substantial coverage in reliable sources. I don't personally have access to any offline sources that might be relevant. But I should point out, the argument "don't delete this because offline sources to demonstrate notability could/might/probably exist" is really just a variant of WP:MUSTBESOURCES. To survive an AFD, it shouldn't be enough to merely argue that offline sources might exist, or even to argue that (in your opinion) they probably do – someone has to identify specific offline sources which demonstrate notability, and no one has been able to do that. Note this is distinct from WP:PAPERONLY/WP:OSO–those are bad arguments when specific offline sources have been identified, but they don't apply when no one can individually identify relevant offline sources. (Finally, deletion isn't permanent – if someone identifies sufficient offline sources at some future date, the article can always be undeleted or recreated.)

I did find a couple of Google Books snippet view resources, which I'll describe in a moment. The problem with snippet view, is you see so little of the text, it is very hard to judge whether the reference complies with WP:RS and WP:GNG or not. This is different from Google Books preview, where you can often see the entire page containing the search term hit, frequently adjacent pages, and often many other pages of the book as well, which makes it much easier to judge the reference's reliability and its individual contribution to notability.

According to Google Books, Software World volume 6 (1976) page 20 mentions a "CICS DEVELOPMENT AID: Gemini UK have released a new product designed to help IBM CICS users. GEMINI OLIVER (On-Line Interactive Video Environment Resource) is an on-line testing aid and debugging package for all IBM System 360/370 DOS and OS users of CICS and CICSA/S. GEMINI OLIVER, is designed to allow application ..." ("CICSA/S" is probably an OCR error for "CICS/VS"). Probably this is the same package as described in this article, but it's hard to be 100% sure given the article never mentions a company called Gemini. However, I'd point out this is just a "snippet view" journal, so unless someone actually has a printed copy of this journal issue (or a scanned-in copy), I don't see how we can judge this reference against the WP:RS and WP:GNG criteria. (Software World doesn't appear to be a particularly notable journal.)

Another reference found on Google Books is International Directory of Software, CUYB Publications, 1980, p. 268. But once again, it's only snippet view, and unless someone has a scanned-in or hardcopy of this publication, we don't have enough information to judge whether this source meets WP:RS and WP:GNG.

If anyone here has access to these hardcopy publications, I think we should all be willing to accept their description of them in general, and of how they cover this particular product – but, we still need to evaluate that description against the relevant policies. But if no one in the discussion has seen those sources, we can't conclude that they are sufficient for this article to pass WP:GNG – we can't just assume, that because unseen sources A and B discuss this product, their discussion of it is substantial enough to meet GNG

I don't deny WP:ITEXISTS – this was a real commerical software product sold in the 1970s, and likely more recently than that as well. But, unless we start arguing that any and all commercial software products sold in the 1970s or earlier are automatically notable – we don't have enough evidence at present to judge it as meeting WP:GNG. (Now, if someone was to propose – any commercial software product prior to date X is automatically notable – I would actually be inclined to support such a proposal, but that isn't Wikipedia's notability standards as they currently stand, and the purpose of WP:AFD is to implement the policies as they currently exist, not to introduce new ones.) SJK (talk) 07:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't think mention in either Software World, or the International Directory of Software, is a good indication of notability, because they are both (I understand) non-selective publications – they aimed to include all commercially available software. As such, they are like the software equivalent of the telephone directory. SJK (talk) 08:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. SJK (talk) 07:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SJK (talk) 07:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An additional comment–despite its title containing "IBM", I can find no evidence this was ever an IBM product – indeed, the article text seems to suggest it is the work of other companies. I suspect the article title is erroneous. The article title originally didn't have "IBM" in the name. There is an IP comment at Talk:IBM OLIVER (CICS interactive test/debug) saying the article title is wrong. SJK (talk) 07:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Move to Draft instead as my searches have found nothing and this is best deleted until it can be noticeably improved, nothing convincing for its own article at this time. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or No consensus until we can find editors with access to offline sources to determine whether this is notable. Delete !votes based on empty internet search results should not be given weight here. ~Kvng (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment which specific offline sources are you referring to? If you don't have specific offline sources in mind, this argument just seems to be a slight variant of WP:MUSTBESOURCES/WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Since no one in this world can have a comprehensive selection of offline sources, by that standard everything from that time period must be notable, since you'd never be able to prove there aren't, somewhere out there, offline sources which demonstrate notability which no one has seen yet. It's essentially demanding to prove a negative (no one can ever prove that no offline sources exist, since no matter how many offline sources you check, there will always be more that you haven't) SJK (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I follow your reasoning but I find the potential implications unacceptable. Anything that is unsourceable on the internet would be subject to persuasive Delete arguments from editors who come up with empty searches. I agree that I haven't made a strong Keep argument but I think my No consensus argument is reasonable (though admittedly unconventional). ~Kvng (talk) 23:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If no one can present any sources for an article, then what is the harm in deleting it? If someone later identifies sufficient sources, the article can always be recreated. The article can be moved out of mainspace (into draftspace or userspace) – and then if someone one day finds sufficient offline sources to meet WP:GNG the article can be moved back to mainspace. SJK (talk) 10:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard arguments from others that anything unsourced should be removed from mainspace. I find the potential implications of that also unacceptable. There is no way sources are going to get added or any other improvements made if we delete or otherwise hide work in progress. See Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. ~Kvng (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 333 -blue 13:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I looked as well, with much the same paucity of results as above. It's clear who the creator of the article is, from this and an already deleted autobiography. Unfortunately, xe has taken the wrong approach to documenting xyr achievements. Please get it independently documented outwith Wikipedia beforehand, M. Dakin. We insist that Wikipedia articles be verifiable from external reliable third-party published materials. This is not. Uncle G (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What seems to be a complete and utter lack of attention to this program even in terms of 1970s and 1980s era publications accessed through Google Books, plus that it's not mentioned in any retrospective materials looking back at the development of the Customer Information Control System framework, makes me think that the notability of this is weak at best. The talk about the article being in 'the process of being built' or that new material 'is just about to be found' or whatever is disingenuous. I'm typing this days and days after the article was first nominated for deletion, and still it looks like while there's so much in the page being claimed about the program, there's still no sourcing. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. Already speedy deleted at 01:39 on 18 May 2016 by 78.26 (talk · contribs): (G3: Blatant hoax) (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 09:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Cillia

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

Allegedly a historic kingdom in Portugal, but there are no sources provided and absolutely none are apparent in the usual internet searches. From all indications this is WP:MADEUP, or a hoax, and in any event there is no indication that it is notable. This was deprodded by the article's creator, but no sources or other responses have been provided in response to the concerns raised by the prod. Arxiloxos (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax No sources found, and the language of the article approaches the preposterous on close reading. Every section of the article is noteworthy in this regard; there ARE NO SOURCES, and where dates are provided, they're "go-to" dates in European history like 1066 that would jump out of one's brain if one were creating a hoax article (whether or not for the deliberately nefarious purpose of damaging Wikipedia's credibility). Concrete example: the bluelinked purported/hoax language "Cillian" directs to an article regarding the Irish names "Cillian" and "Killian". The fact that the article's creator has done nothing else on WP strongly supports WP:MADEUP as well. This person is really some brand-new scholar of an entirely unprobed, unknown era of well-trod medieval Portuguese history? - Julietdeltalima (talk) 22:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 23:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 23:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Templated for speedy deletion as blatant hoax - People in Cillia in Portugal believe in Poseidon? Seriously? To add, even if this was believable somehow, it would be really strange that not only do we not have a page about an autonomous region in a major European country, but that ptwiki doesn't have one either. Daß Wölf (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You were blunter than I felt comfortable being, and I agree with you completely. I appreciate that you have unwittingly helped me raise this question: Why is it so hard to speedy-delete obvious hoaxes? (I assume this should actually be addressed via some bureaucratic Wikiprocess I'm in the process of identifying—WP:RFC, maybe? I don't know. I've only been here a year and a half, and interpret bureaucratic guidelines for a real-life living, and this has still taken hours to get to nowhere on, so who knows?!) Sometimes, OBVIOUS HOAXES ARE OBVIOUS, and I tag them as such, and I still get my CSD tags deleted with patronizing nastygrams on my talk page from well-meaning non-involved admins because "hoaxes aren't really supposed to be CSDed but really only PRODded," even though the hoaxster can, as here, blithely delete the PROD and force us all to this exercise in lunacy that only makes Wikipedians look silly. But I reckon this is a rant for another time and some other place. Thanks for letting me share. Julietdeltalima (talk) 01:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I didn't feel too comfortable tagging this, but seeing as you advocated speedy delete here, I did so. I agree completely that while this won't be obvious for everyone on the planet, this type of article needs to go ASAP. It does us far more damage to have 7 days of passing readers reading this and considering it plausible but "controversial" because of that pesky AfD/PROD notice they won't click, than to have them stumble on a totally obvious hoax, which they won't believe for a second. Daß Wölf (talk) 01:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of this is true, but I still don't mind filing an AfD first in situations like this, partly just to confirm that I didn't miss something and mostly so that there will be a written record, readable by ordinary editors as well as admins, in the event that someone tries again to introduce a specious topic like this one. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as blatant hoax. Thanks to all for their vigilance. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 12:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

QF-Test

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

Notability and advertising issues. Not improved in seven years. —swpb^T 20:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 20:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources already in the article. We don't delete articles because they're poorly written or because they have not improved over time. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, referenced and there is no wp:deadline for improving or updating articles DeVerm (talk) 01:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the sources seem enough, this will need familiar attention. SwisterTwister talk 07:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ayana Sasagawa

(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)

Non-notable voice actor. Has a supporting role in Negima, and that's about it. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support (having flagged the page as unreferenced recently) unless experts in this artform can put together a strong case for her retention. Dubbin^{u | t | c} 10:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Japanese wiki article is turning up a lot of roles not mentioned in the article we have here. [6] It doesn't look promising given the tag but is worth a look at. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well they're definitely not showing prominence in anime and manga. VADB only shows 9 roles: [7] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the roles look to pass WP:ENT. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as by far not at all convincing for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete she is not a notabile voice actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 14:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WordSpit The ILLest

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

Page with multiple issues: BLP citation issues, promotional language, possible self creation, orphaned, dodgy sources, notability questions. Subject is an extremely marginal performer whose career appears to have stopped short of notability following a game show appearance. Dkendr (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing here at all convincing of the applicable notability, there's nothing else to suggest it can actually be kept therefore. SwisterTwister talk 07:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks any real notability, just a short appearance on a tv talent show, nithing independent of that. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 12:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seal the Deal & Let's Boogie

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

none of the coverage is significant and so fails WP:NALBUM and is clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON. I had a discussion about this with Another Believer (talk · contribs) but the editor does not get it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No, I get it, I just disagree. The album has a confirmed release date, track listing, is referenced by multiple sources, cover art, has a lead single that charted, etc. Just let the article snowball--the album is released in 2 weeks. There is no need to delete this article. IF consensus says it is too soon to have a Wikipedia article for this album, then we should simply redirect. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- None of that is criteria in WP:ALBUM so you don't get it. Referenced by multiple sources is the closest, but it's all trivial. There is no discussion of the actual album, the recording process, the musicians (ie. significant coverage). What is present is hype from their marketing department. Yes, the album will be released in two weeks and there may be coverage of the album then, but there is none now. And you hypocrite! It was redirected and you decided to add trivial coverage. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not a hypocrite. I am against even redirecting this article. I was simply saying that if others agree with you, that it is too soon for this article to exist, then the page should simply be redirected and not deleted. I am not going to argue about this anymore, because it is a waste of my time. If only we were spending our time improving this article instead of adding bytes talking about its unnecessary deletion... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm sorry to say that this nomination is a waste of the project's time. I apologize for that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Based on the existing coverage it would possibly be a merge to the band article, but come on, it's out in 2 weeks and the chances of it not getting enough coverage to establish notability are slim. The best thing would be to withdraw the nomination, give it a few weeks and if the expected coverage doesn't emerge, propose a merge on the article's talk page. --Michig (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems like a waste of time to dele and/or merge the article, when it is to be release in near future. Toxophilus (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's not a valid reason, but understandable. What really should have happened is it should not have been created until RSes existed for it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conflans Road

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

Just another road. Wikipedia is not a street directory. TheLongTone (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication how how this road is significant in any way. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication in the article that this is a significant road, and no indications in Web search either. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A look at the map shows that part of this street is a divided road, and that it has an interchange with the President George Bush Turnpike (Texas State Highway 161), providing access to the West Irving Trinity Railway Express station. So it's important to the commuters unfortunate enough to be stuck in a car near DFW Airport. But I don't see any evidence that this street is any more notable—in the Wikipedian sense—than any of the other streets on the turnpike exit list, or any other similarly run of the mill suburban arterial road. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication it passes WP:GEOROAD. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 00:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As indicated above, this road does not appear notable enough to include in an encyclopedia. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC) (Fixing signature.)[reply]
Delete This road does not satisfy nobility criteria. --Dcirovic (talk) 02:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as by far nothing at all for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 07:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 14:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maa shaarde iti,chakchamu

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

No evidence of notability in a brief search for the article's bolded name. Article of similar bent was A7/G11'd at Maa Shaarde Private Industrial Training Institute; I don't think this fits an A7 but it may fit a G11. Izno (talk) 14:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as this could imaginably be notable but it's still questionable since it's not comprehensibly clear of the necessary information. Delete and restart at best. Notifying DGG for schools analysis. SwisterTwister talk 07:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. no clear evidence it is a degree-granting college. DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 14:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anandmurti Gurumaa

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

I see zero reliable sources among the references to support how this person meets WP:BIO notability criteria. Most of them are primary sources or dead links. A Google search doesn't come up with much besides her Youtube and Facebook presense. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appears to be a vanity page. If someone else comes up with RS for this person, I could be convinced to change my mind. Montanabw ^(talk) 09:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as by far expected of course as we've seen this before, but there's simply nothing, at least comprehensibly, better for any applicable notability. There's nothing actually salvageable here. SwisterTwister talk 07:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of independent sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close and I intended this earlier but had not in case something else happened here, but this was actually started by an alternative account of a user apparently upset at his own deleted article and apparently now nominating other articles for deletion, thus this is all questionable; also, the current article has enough to suggest basic acceptance for now. Let's now waste anyone's time with alternative accounts coming to WP with a shady past (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 07:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Synthite Industrial Chemicals

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

unclear Reference & Low Source Diranoop (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Alternative search per WP:INDAFD: Synthite Industrial Chemicals) --Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major company in its field, already referenced with The Hindu, Business Standard, The Times of India, and The Economic Times of India, and there are plenty more reliable, secondary sources to add, WP:CORPDEPTH is easily met here. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedual close as SNOW and Speedy Keep considering this was actually an alternative account of a user whose article was deleted and apparently they intended to delete other articles as a result, thus there's no need to carry this AfD longer (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 07:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna Sebastian

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

unclear Source & Reference Diranoop (talk) 12:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Alternative search per WP:INDAFD: Madonna Sebastian) --Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Could do with a little copy editing maybe, but she is notable under the basic notability guideline for people as can be verified by referencing multiple reliable, secondary sources, and she meets the additional criteria for actors as she has had significant roles in multiple notable productions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough solid references to establish notability.TheLongTone (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Clearly passes WP:BASIC —Vensatry _(talk) 17:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 14:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mutant Mouse Research and Resource Centers

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

Dubious notability and certainly no attempt made to demonstrate notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still overall questionable for the needed notability, it claims it's a national organization with over 30,000 members but that's also nothing convincing of a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 17:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - cannot find any reliable sources. Tom29739 ^[talk] 21:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A clear consensus for delete after 16 days and relisting. There is also no support for the suggestion that Saudi princes are inherently notable. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Mohsin bin Walid bin Abdulaziz al-Saud

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

There are many Saudi Arabian princes and they are not inherently notable. This particular article falls afoul of WP:BLP1E and possibly WP:BLPCRIME. There doesn't appear to be any notability outside of this single event. clpo13_(talk) 15:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Indeed there are many Saudi Arabian princes but they are inherently notable as Saudi Arabia is an Absolute Monarchy where each prince can be considered to hold national or international office, making articles about them inherently valid as a US Senator or UK Minister of Parliament. Especially when the media coverage has conferred significant notability on a high-profile criminal act he was involved in and meets guidelines and those regarding reliable sources, which I think it has. Sheepy Shoo (talk) 17:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 15:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 15:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The current Saudi monarch has several hundred half-nephews, and I strongly doubt that, even though they all have a special social status within Saudi Arabia, we should regard all of them as automatically notable - though the subject of the related AfD may have a claim, as (verifiably) a son of a previous Saudi monarch. In this case, though, the accusation of WP:BLP1E seems more true than usual - on a Google search, I can not find a single reference to this person, or for that matter his father, except in news stories about this specific criminal incident. Can anyone else do so? If not - we have quite enough evidence to show that the incident happened, and several aspects of the way it was handled only makes sense if the protagonist was indeed a Saudi prince. But I do wonder if his name was the one given in the news reports. PWilkinson (talk) 08:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that he has any position of government power in Saudi Arabia. The article focuses on one event, that is a news event, and not enough to make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 11:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CRIMINAL ans as noted Saudi royal relations are ten a penny.TheLongTone (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a prince is not inheritly notable and there's nothing convincing of the needed independent notability, nothing at all convincing. SwisterTwister talk 07:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only notable for one event, and fails WP:CRIMINAL. Also not inherently notable. Tom29739 ^[talk] 21:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 12:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Löfstedt

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

Non notable athlete + not referenced Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all yet suggesting the necessary solid independent notability improvements, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, the "news" link directly above displays Gnews Swedish search results that do seem to meet WP:GNG. Keep Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Shawn in Montreal's analysis. I double-checked, and there are good sources there. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 13:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NSPORT states that someone is presumed notable if they "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level." This is clearly the Olympics for Olympic-sports and I think the world championships for major non-Olympic sports. The popularity of Bandy, such as being listed as the 2nd most popular winter sport, would make anyone competing in their world championships notable. This individual did, so keep. RonSigPi (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 21:36, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 11:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per others. Passes WP:NSPORT as having participated at the highest level of his sport.--TM 16:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of PlayStation 3 games without trophy support

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

This is a very poor article. It is entirely sourced to a forum post, and a Google search suggests the topic is not notable, with all results being forum posts. Fails WP:N and WP:V. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 11:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is an unmaintainable list. shoy (reactions) 13:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree this is an unmaintainable list and unable to be merged into any other article. Garchy (talk) 14:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and I think #7 of WP:NOTDIR would work here. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This was one of many excessive lists related to the PS3 I redirected weeks back. It's another non-notable list that lacks to sources to properly document this. Sergecross73 msg me 14:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Trivial list. --The1337gamer (talk) 08:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I find the information useful, but it of course needs proper sourcing. JonathanDP81 (talk | contribs) 15:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid keep rationale. Sergecross73 msg me 19:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Carolina Chocolate Drops. And merge from history as consensus may determine. Sandstein 20:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Matta

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. Notability is not inherited; there is a mention of the subject in the band's article. Not a single third party independent source provided, and none found. Scr★pIron^IV 22:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is Jaron. all of the inline citations i've added to the page were from 3rd party sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaron Felix Patton (talk • contribs) 22:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Carolina Chocolate Drops and merge as needed, as the article is still questionable overall with nothing else convincing. I would hope anyone boldly starting this again if ever would be smart before any such actions. Delete as I found nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 22:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment -As i said all of the references i've added were from third party independant sources that were not made by the artist.
Delete fails WP:GNG.--Michiquito (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - lead member of an award-winning band. At worse, redirect. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Note to Jaron Felix Patton The references, whether 3rd party or not, are trivial or promotional in tone and therefore do not convey notability. The first two references are paragraph-styled laundry lists of achievements, not unlike someone's resume on their LinkedIn profile. The third reference, a listing of photos of the subject, is irrelevant. The fourth reference is a promotional article from the subject's record label's blog--itself promotional in purpose--and therefore cannot be considered independent. Note to user Bearian: I agree it is acceptable to redirect to the Carolina Chocolate Drops page but I disagree that the subject is independently notable apart from this band. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Carolina Chocolate Drops. Sources exist, although I didn't find enough to justify a standalone article: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. --Michig (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 21:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Carolina Chocolate Drops - not enough notability to warrant a standalone article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello this is Jaron, I was able to find more 3rd party sources that indicate notability, Please check them and see if they work. if not i'll try to find more, and if that fails then i guess we would need to take it down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaron Felix Patton (talk • contribs) 23:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 11:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or redirect per above. The new references are all still trivial. Just seems to fail WP:GNG at this point. Maybe in the future. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 11:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would normally push for a biographical article to be kept and reworked, but this really doesn't hold up to WP:MUSICBIO - most of the references are not notable on their own, and at least one source is a college newspaper. Garchy (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Carolina Chocolate Drops, which will improve that article per the rather limited information about the subject in it at this time. WP:PRESERVE appropriate content. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any appropriate material to Carolina Chocolate Drops, and redirect. Several "delete" and the one "keep" !voters said they'd be ok with that too. -- IamNotU (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A clear consensus for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Hyslop

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

No claim to notability besides third-party political candidacy, should have been speedied but tag was removed. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject does not appear to meet WP:POLITICIAN, and sources to support that WP:ANYBIO or simply WP:BASIC is met have not been found. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete political candidate that doesn't meet WP:BIO .LibStar (talk) 12:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I myself patrolled this at NPP, not at all convincing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 17:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, super-duper easy one this time, no question of notability. Frickeg (talk) 01:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP, written even more blatantly than usual as a campaign brochure rather than an encyclopedia article, of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate for political office — which is not a notability claim that gets a person into Wikipedia by itself: if you cannot demonstrate and source that he was already notable enough for an article before running as a candidate, then he has to win the election to get an article. Delete, without prejudice against recreation on or after election day if he wins. Bearcat (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. Being a candidate in a federal election is a claim of significance that is enough to survive WP:A7. Is we remove the last two paragraphs of policy statement we are left with a seven-sentence resume. Overall it is not promotional enough to fall under WP:G11, but still fails the basic notability criteria. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and I'd add that a Green standing for a Liberal-held House of Reps seat is highly unlikely to be elected so he's not likely to become notable as a result of the election. Nick-D (talk) 01:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted, IAR close since AfD is no longer needed (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 17:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kamel Abu Saqer

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

The article as it stands is little more than a resume. While as a lawyer and overall advocate for helping people with legal services I'm sure Mr. Saqer is well-qualified, I don't think he passes the WP:GNG bar of notability. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources found the suggest subject meets WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. With a 99.5% copy-vio score of http://gulflegaldocs.com/page_contents.php?sel_id=1 I would have tagged this G12 myself. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Fieari (talk) 04:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I actually speedy tagged, not at all convincing of accepting for basic notability, clearly not at all comprehensibly encyclopedia material. SwisterTwister talk 07:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted - could not be more blatant. Deb (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Ban evasion. (non-admin closure) Izkala (talk) 12:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Wiedemann

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

Fails both WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF. Wiedemann has published just three chapbooks (pamphlets) with a small press. Her BLP misrepresents her as having published a book of verse. Her work has received no critical attention. The single source sited in the BLP is a promotion from a local writers' cooperative. Wiedemann has no significant internet presence other than a self-published site. Not to be confused with an eminent German academic of the same name. NotAJF (talk) 08:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, if it's not on the internet then it can't be true. Speedy keep; passes PROF, and this is a revenge nomination, in retaliation for my removing a non-free image from an article this person wrote. Drmies (talk) 12:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MiloShare

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

WP:NOTE [13]
And the website is not even active anymore... Only copy I've found is http://archive.is/DG8k4
Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable defunct file-hosting company, no reliable sources could be found: fails WP:GNG. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously, as there are no sources at all, the website was never notable, and now it is extinct. —Prhart com♥ 05:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's nothing actually transparent for solid independent notability, nothing at all convincing. SwisterTwister talk 07:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn. Drmies (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeni Couzyn

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

Fails both WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF. Wiedemann has published just three chapbooks (pamphlets) with a small press. Her BLP misrepresents her as having published a book of verse. Her work has received no critical attention. The single source sited in the BLP is a promotion from a local writers' cooperative. Wiedemann has no significant internet presence other than a self-published site. Not to be confused with an eminent German academic of the same name. NotAJF (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy withdraw nomination. Total newbie balls-up with Twinkle. Apologies. I meant to nominate the Barbara Wiedemann article. NotAJF (talk) 08:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Faisal Saif. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 12:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Main Osama

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

Fails NMOVIES. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

using some due diligence:

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Main Osama Faisal Saif

Redirect for now to director Faisal Saif where this can be spoken of and cited per multiple reliable sources speaking about its production.[14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]. Apparently filming began and audio tracks created, but has been put on hold. As this film topic meets WP:GNG, once filming restarts, this should be refunded and sent to article space per WP:NFF (paragraph 3) for expansion and sourcing per the many sources available. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect obviously, not yet notable. SwisterTwister talk 20:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdraw as Keep as apparently this is a Keep (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Esther Richardson

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

I nearly would've PRODed too if it wasn't for the 2010 AfD thus it's certainly time for a new AfD, my searches have found nothing better than this, this and this and none of it suggests the needed solid independent notability, simply nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I question whether WP:BEFORE was performed on this before SwisterTwister nominated it for AfD. I've started cleaning up the article, adding the sources about this director of multiple stage productions across the UK. She is also in the news quite a lot: please see my additions to the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, following improvements in references by Megalibrarygirl. Individually, a number of these, while mostly perfectly good for verifiability, have some problems for notability (distinctly local sources, not particularly substantial and so on), but overall almost all of the sources are clearly independent of the subject, the subject's work is regularly being reviewed by theatre critics in national sources and she has obtained some significant coverage. WP:GNG has, in my opinion, been met. PWilkinson (talk) 10:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article has been significantly improved after nomination with additional press sources allowing WP:Verifiability and WP:BASIC to both be passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another too-hasty AfD. Montanabw ^(talk) 06:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 14:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Brooks (actor)

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

I frankly would've PRODed but considering the 52 episodes of a TV series, it may be removed. Honestly, there's nothing else to suggest actually better for WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG. To state the obvious, my searches have found nothing better at all which is not surprising. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources whatsovever. Fails WP:GNG. Tom29739 ^[talk] 21:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of -related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 00:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMBd is not a reliable source per our own rules, so it cannot be the only source. I have to say that having read the IMDb article on him, this is why I am skeptical of using ancestry categories on people like him. There is no indication that English, Irish and Cherokee captures all his ancestry. I know any listing of my ancestry that does not subsume most of it as undiferentiated and undiscernable American will be flawed. The fact of the matter is I have ancestors on both my mom's and dad's side, including my maternal grandmothers poorly identified father, whose actually ancestry we can not say anything beyond they were probably at least half of some sort of European descent. On my Dad's side I have one line that is allegedly Cherokee, and in fact one of my ancestors on that side used to have a Wikipedia article that mentioned such. However I have since come to realize a good percentage of Cherokee ancestry is actually a cover for African ancestry. So I have no clue what my actual ancestry is there either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 14:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandro Nori

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

The subject appears to fail our requirement for significant coverage in reliable sources as discussed at WP:BASIC. A web search did not yield anything better than the blog source already used in the article. VQuakr (talk) 06:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all convincing for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – FWIW, here's one source that provides significant coverage about the subject, found using the Google News link atop. However, not finding much else; does not meet WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 14:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael A. Cooper

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

Lack of Notability AnthroMimus (talk) 06:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable, no news sources, no external sources of any sort. Fieari (talk) 03:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I would've explored PROD instead, nothing for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 01:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Max Shortell

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

fails WP:NGRIDIRON Joeykai (talk) 05:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Joeykai: Did you check on-line sources to see whether he passes WP:GNG? Cbl62 (talk) 14:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick review of on-line sources reveals dozens of articles constituting significant coverage of Shortell in multiple, reliable sources, sufficient to pass WP:GNG. The coverage goes well beyond WP:ROUTINE such as passing references in game coverage. A few examples of the significant coverage include: (1) "Crossing the line Max Shortell is a Pop Warner linebacker-turned-quarterback who brings the smarts of both positions to the Gophers' huddle at QB, Star Tribune, Sept. 22, 2012, (2) "Shortell Takes Reins at Minnesota", Associated Press, Sept. 21, 2012, (3) "Freshman Max Shortell is making his presence felt as a possible No. 2 quarterback", St. Paul Pioneer Press, August 10, 2011; (4) "Plenty of eyes will be on Max Shortell on Saturday", St. Paul Pioneer Press, September 28, 2011, (5) "Gophers football: Max Shortell once had eyes for Iowa", St. Paul Pioneer Press, September 24, 2012, (6) "Minnesota transfer Max Shortell among 4 in mix for Jacksonville State starting QB position", August 1, 2013, (7) "Former Minnesota quarterback Max Shortell says he's coming to Jacksonville State", The Birmingham News, May 9, 2013, (8) "Former Gophers QB Max Shortell transfers to Jacksonville State" Star Tribune, May 9, 2013, (9) "Shortell lifts squad to 3-0 after Gray's injury", Minnesota Daily, Oct. 4, 2014, (10) "JSU's Shortell makes best of his playing time", The Anniston Star, Sept. 2, 2014, (11) "Shortell shines again against UTM", The Anniston Star, Oct. 4, 2014, (12) "Shortell shines again against UTM", The Anniston Star, Nov. 4, 2013, (13) "QB Shortell will transfer from U Writing was on the wall, his father says", St. Paul Pioneer Press, Dec. 5, 2012, (14) "Shortell struggles as a starter", St. Paul Pioneer Press, Sept. 30, 2012, (15) "Poise of a playful Shortell comes through in huddle", and (16) "'Red Rocket' relaunch didn't lack preparation Shortell prepped to be a starter with offseason training", St. Paul Pioneer Press, Sept. 22, 2012. Cbl62 (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Cbl62's research and sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Keep clearly passes WP:GNG. Most Division I FBS starting quarterbacks generate enough press to surpass the general notability guideline, and this case is no exception.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vab Media Digital Agency

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

None of the third-party references provide depth of coverage required for WP:CORP notability. A few of them are simply interviews with one of their employees, and at least a third of the refs are about their clients. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply nothing convincingly better including for the applicable notability, I would've also considered PROD had this been worse. SwisterTwister talk 20:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are 17 third party resources listed with the company being mentioned in some of them, if you look at the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Fountain_Media many of those third party links are also interviews with particular employees as well. jellybean420 ^Talk 02:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough in depth sourcing. Tom29739 ^[talk] 21:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clients may be notable but this company isn't. Insufficient in depth coverage. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW. Consensus is that the list should be kept, cf. WP:LISTOUTCOMES, and that references can be improved to meet WP:LISTN. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 22:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of GUI testing tools

AfDs for this article:

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

Queryable speedy delete request. The previous AfD gave "keep". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The previous AfD was closed keep, but I'm not really seeing an argument for deletion here. Very many of the entries are sourced: I can't think of a reason why most cannot be. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every entry in the list is notable and has an article. It follows many such lists across Wikipedia. There is no criteria for notability of lists of links that I know of and the subject itself, GUI testing tools, is notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfectly reasonable list. Sourcing can be improved if that's an issue. I don't see a rationale for deletion here. --Michig (talk) 06:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a reasonable list to have. Blythwood (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and snow close. This nomination was simply a response by a bitter editor whose own page was appropriately deleted, trying to enforce their own sense of equal treatment. —swpb^T 13:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't agree more. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 20:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a useful list to have. --Dcirovic (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Discounting the opinion by the self-described paid contributor for what I would hope are obvious reasons. Sandstein 20:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

National Wellness Institute

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

One of a group of related paid articles. There is no evidencethat the institute is notable. The references are either its own publications, o press releases, of notices and advertisements. Or for ref. 3, a statement that a notable organization has adopted the same definition of wellness that the Institute uses. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches have found nothing better and the current article is not better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The organisation is nearly forty years in existence and is recognised as a leading American organisation if the field of wellness, as shown by the frequency with which it is cited by authors in this field (examples listed below). A number of its present or ex-senior management are also notable figures in the field of wellness, including Bill Hettler, William Baun, and Meg Jordan. The National Wellness Institute is one of the organisations active in efforts to bring in a national accreditation for professional health and wellness coaches in the US, which have included a national summit on the issue. Participants at this included GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Medical School, Mayo Clinic and American Occupational Nurses Association. The NWI's national conference is an annual event that has included notable speakers and attendees such as Mike Huckabee, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Patch Adams, Geoffrey Canada, Barbara Fredrickson, David Katz, Candice Pert, Herbert Benson, Joan Borysenko, and Richard Davidson. NWI has been used as a point of reference in a large number of publications, including (but not limited to): Encyclopedia of Adolescence[25], Prevention Practice - A Physical Therapist’s Guide to Health, Fitness, and Wellness[26], Team-building Handbook: Improving Nurse-to-nurse Relationships[27], Health, Tourism and Hospitality: Spas, Wellness and Medical Travel[28], Lifetime Physical Fitness for Wellness - ‘The premier site for college and university programs and assessment tools'[29], Health and Wellness for Life[30], Health Promotion and Wellness - An Evidence-based Guide to Clinical Preventive Services[31], Survey of Athletic Injuries for Exercise Science[32], Health Promotion and Aging: Practical Applications for Health Professionals[33] I was the original writer of the article and was a paid contributor Fbell74 (talk) 01:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fbel1184, your subjective judgment of the importance of the organization is inevitable affected by the fact that you were, just as you say, paid by the organization to write the article. As for distinguished people attending or speaking at their meetings, not everything that a Senator does is intrinsically notable--they inevitable attend many non-notable events as well. DGG ( talk ) 18:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out that the comments I made are related to the merits of retaining the article rather than being opinion based. Certainly, notable people, such as senators and the others that I mentioned do attend and speak at both notable and non-notable events. If this was the sole basis for notability, then it might not be enough. However, this is part of the larger picture. Separately, I believe (and this is an opinion) that it would be of interest generally to know that one or other of these individuals has been associated with the National Wellness Conference. For example, I was quite surprised that Mike Huckabee had been a keynote speaker, as I hadn't imagined him as a wellness type of person. Fbell74 (talk) 01:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Royal broil 02:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep - Reference #2 is the only thing holding this up, as it appears to be a reliable source that is citing this organization as being a reliable source. Personally, I don't care that someone paid to have it created as long as it isn't an advertisement (and this clearly isn't written as such), but it is important that a 3rd party independently references the organization as being of interest. It seems that this barely scrapes by on that standard. Fieari (talk) 03:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean reference 2 in the article, which is a local newspaper,or the second reference in the list above. Prevention Practice.. a book in only 137 libraries by an author who has writtennothing else, a/c WorldCat. One such source is not enough for 1notability DGG ( talk ) 18:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My original comment referred to ref2 in the article, which granted, is a local paper, but it's not reporting on a local topic. On that basis, I said weak keep, maybe even very weak. On the books listed above, the list was enough to upgrade my vote to keep. I'm finding that each of the books listed do cite this organization, and that while some of them are smaller printings, none of them are vanity presses and they can be found in some major libraries. Are you suggesting that an academic book should have a bestseller-like print run to be considered reliable? Fieari (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote from weak keep to keep, in light of the additional sources provided by Fbell74, above. If reliable sources cite this organization as a reliable source, that should fulfil notability requirements. Fieari (talk) 03:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an advertisement, created by a paid editor in order to publicise the institute. Wikipedia does not allow advertisements, of any kind, anywhere. Paid editing of articles is very strongly discouraged; in practice, about the only form of discouragement we have is to undo or delete those unwelcome edits. Delete this, without prejudice to re-creation of a real Wikipedia article by an impartial non-involved editor. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as non-notable. I'm not finding enough in-depth coverage by independent, reliable sources. I also find the article promotional, but that's not reason to delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of multilingual websites

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

This article would be far too long. A category of the same topic has already been created. — Music1201 ^talk 04:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If and when the list article becomes too long, then it can be split into separate pages. (WP:SPINOUT) Possibly it will never become too long. (WP:HASTE) Also, a list can co-exist with a corresponding category. (WP:CLN)

—Wavelength (talk) 06:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The list has well-defined criteria for inclusion that don't leave the impression that length can become an issue. Uanfala (talk) 00:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which WP:DEL-REASON is "would be far too long"? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I do not understand the purpose of this list. It is not to help navigation and does not seem to meet notability for stand-alone lists. I am afraid that it is an exercise in original research. Renata (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This list presents, on one page, details which are not presented on the category page, as well as details (specific languages) which are not presented on all the entry article pages. For some multilingual websites, the reader needs to visit the website (or consult this list) to find those details. Thus, the reader of the list is able to compare the details (of various websites) presented on one page. That advantage very definitely does help navigation for readers interested in specific languages or in large numbers of languages. (WP:CLN, paragraph 2, second half) Also, the two external links in the present version are to pages discussing multilingual websites, and there are many other web pages also discussing multilingual websites. The list very definitely does meet notability for stand-alone lists. (WP:LISTN)

—Wavelength (talk) 23:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, trivial inclusion criterion. Geschichte (talk) 08:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph of the introduction mentions two important (nontrivial) inclusion criteria: for a website to qualify, (1) it must have more than one interface language, and (2) Wikipedia must have an article about the website itself.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that a category would be better as I don't really understand the point of this list. Also violates WP:OR. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 10:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your first statement is answered by my post of 06:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC) and my post of 23:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC), both on this page. Also, I selected entries from Category:Multilingual websites, and I found the website address for each entry in the respective Wikipedia article. For each entry, I found the interface languages in the Wikipedia article or on the website or both. For many entries, I found the number of entries stated in the Wikipedia article or on the website or both. For some entries, I consulted Wikimedia wikis for the number and names of interface languages. For some entries, I counted the interface languages myself. All those actions appear to be in compliance with WP:OR.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTADIRECTORY. Sigh. What's next, list of websites using black color or size 11 font? Ridiculous. PS. If this comment is a bit harsh, let me clarify. This list can be, in fact, useful to someone. But I don't see how it fits into our project scope; OR concerns and such seem valid to me. However, I note we do not have an article on multilingual website. Perhaps it would be notable, and if this is the case, perhaps such a list could be a part of it.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Multilingualism is more important than color or font size, when various websites are compared in their function as information sources. Wikipedia does have an article "Languages used on the Internet", and its section "See also" can have an internal link to this list article.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Editors who translate articles between different versions of Wikipedia can use some of these websites for references.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. In May 2010, I translated the Esperanto article w:eo:Esperanto, kandidato por Nobel-Premio pri Paco en 2008 into English at w:en:Esperanto, candidate for Nobel Peace Prize in 2008, but the English article was deleted, with the edit summary "Expired PROD, concern was: Please prove notability using reliable sources within 7 days. Contact me or the help desk for any support." The Esperanto article has sources (in Esperanto and French), but I was unable to provide sources in English.

In May 2016, I translated the majority of the Spanish article w:es:Idioma leco into English at w:en:Leco language, in response to Wikipedia:Translating Ibero - America/list 2016. If English sources are required for my contribution to the English version, then I am not sure of whether I would be able to find any.

By accessing a website with information already prepared in a plurality of languages, a Wikipedia editor is able to find equivalent sources for all of those languages. A list article is more useful than a category page for showing which websites have information in which languages. A Wikipedia editor using only the category page would have to spend time in opening various articles about individual websites, and in some cases, also spend time in visiting the websites, in order to find those details. The list article has similar benefits for readers who are not editing Wikipedia.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC) and 01:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Wikipedia requires that an article be supported by reliable sources. Perhaps the research involved in finding reliably sourced information is what some of the commenters count as original research. The article "Facebook" (version of 11:21, 15 May 2016) says that the website is available in 140 languages, but the website https://www.facebook.com lists only 91 available languages. If an editor revises the article "Facebook" to make it agree with the website https://www.facebook.com, perhaps some of the commenters would say that that is a violation of the policy against original research. No commenter has explained what aspect(s) of "List of multilingual websites" he or she believes involve(s) original research. Different editors have different interpretations of what counts as original research, and different people have different interpretations of what counts as forbidden work.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete. I cannot see this ever being a useful article. The number of websites out there that support more than one language is in what, the millions? I have no idea but it is certainly several orders of magnitude larger than the small, editor selected list here. There is no clear criterion why these have been selected, no evidence (other than implied primary sourcing via external links) that they are multilingual. As these issues can never be fixed, so a suitable article can never be created, it should be deleted.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a clear criterion for selecting these websites and it's stated in the lead: only those that have a dedicated wikipedia article. There are 118 of these at present. Uanfala (talk) 23:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But WP is not a reliable source, for itself or for anything else, and referring to WP itself like that should be avoided. That 118 is clearly inadequate. I can think of many not listed here so presumably not categorised, and there must be many many more. Large, important web sites will tend to be multilingual and they will tend to belong to notable companies with articles. It’s not a problem that the category is woefully incomplete – it is a matter for individual articles – but it does render this list inadequate as it is and impossible to make it even close to complete as it would get too long.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the introduction to the article. "List of multilingual websites" is not a list of entities with multilingual websites. If it were, then it would include "European Union", an article about an entity whose website (http://europa.eu) has 24 interface languages. This article is a list of multilingual websites, where each website listed has a Wikipedia article and various interface languages. If the website of the European Union had a website which was notable enough in its own right for Wikipedia to have an article about it (possibly "European Union website"), then that article could be on this list. The number of potential websites on this list is evidently lower than what you seem to suppose.

—Wavelength (talk) 05:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC) and 01:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The list, with 75 websites listed at this time, is very useful to me. For the entry "Facebook", I used the figure "91" (representing the number of languages in the language menu on the website), instead of the figure "140" shown in the Wikipedia article. It seems reasonable to me that, for such details, the website itself is more reliable and more up-to-date than both the Wikipedia article and a secondary source. (WP:SENSE)

—Wavelength (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to whoever will close this discussion. I have endeavored to refute all of the objections to the existence of this list article, and I hope that you will find my comments to be convincing. If you decide to keep the article, then I thank you in advance. If your decision is for deletion, then I request that you provide three things in your closing comments (a link to a policy supporting your decision, a quotation of the relevant text in that policy, and a mention of the aspect of the list article that you find violates the policy), and I thank you in advance for providing those three things.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC) and 01:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At first blush, it does sound like an unencyclopedic list. But after reading the introduction to the list (something that half of the participants in this discussion here seem to give an indication of not having done), I find it suitable. The grouping of websites by interface languages is culturally relevant (in the broad sense) and the inclusion criterion (only websites with wikipedia articles) makes it maintainable.

Renata3, WP:LISTN isn't of much help here as the guideline explicitly states that there's no present consensus on the notability of cross-categorisation lists. There is, however, one clue in the text there: the list will be notable if the grouping ot the items is notable of itself. So in our case: is multilingual website a notable concept? Even though there's no wikipedia article about it yet, we'd all agree that it is notable (and if we don't, a look at the google scholar results should be enough of a hint). As for the argument that Category:Multilingual websites already does the job of this list: well, it doesn't: the category can't list the languages of each website. Uanfala (talk) 00:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy or move to project space per NOTDIRECTORY, or you prefer per NOTGUIDE. The criteria "websites each of which has more than one interface language" seems to me like a fairly arbitrary thing to curate. One might as well have "car models each of which has more than one available engine" or "sodas each of which uses more than one sweetener in different markets". If Wikipedians find such a list useful for translation or reference, put it in an appropriate namespace. But as an encyclopedia article, this list is trying to be something that Wikipedia is not. The project should be for encyclopedia readers; the needs of editors are secondary. Cnilep (talk) 07:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if Bilingual inscription should be deleted based on these criteria. Uanfala (talk) 10:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're comparing apples and oranges. The equivalent would be List of bilingual inscriptions, and yes, I'd say that would likely be an AfD candidate too. As you've already noted, we don't actually have a comparable article called Multilingual website where some of the top examples could be listed. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 16:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(New post) At 00:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC), I said: "The list article has similar benefits for readers who are not editing Wikipedia." At 19:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC), I said: "Multilingualism is more important than color or font size, when various websites are compared in their function as information sources." For "car models each of which has more than one available engine", there is "List of hybrid vehicles". For "sodas each of which uses more than one sweetener in different markets", I find no Wikipedia article at the present time, but there is "List of soft drink flavors". Multilingualism is not trivial. As an editor of Wikipedia and as a reader, I find the list, with 75 websites listed at this time, to be very useful.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. For anyone who deems "List of multilingual websites" to involve a trivial criterion (or several trivial criteria), I have compiled this list of Wikipedia articles, presented here in the order in which I found them. All of them are useful, and their criteria are not trivial.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC) and 19:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. With respect to Wavelength, only two of those lists you've cited as WP:OTHERSTUFF are quite comparable to this one (the last two) - every other list you've cited there is a verifiable list, with an obvious qualifying threshold, with clear scope to be updated and to cite external sources as to its completeness. This list, on the other hand, is - per the intro - essentially your handy bookmark list of Wikipedia articles on sites which have multilingual interfaces, with the qualifying criteria to be determined by your own definition of "multilingual interface". How do we know you've not missed any? How do we know if it's up to date, since nobody has bothered checking every website with a Wikipedia article in the last 20 minutes to see if they've rolled out a new multilingual interface and kept an up-to-date verifiable third-party source noting the same? How do we know that your own definition of what counts as "an interface in more than one language" matches mine? I think that's what people mean by the list falling on WP:LISTN as trivial - it's not that they find the subject matter trivial per se, it's that it's pretty arbitrary, in a way that all but two of your examples aren't. Now, as a category, I believe this could still be quite a useful resource - if you've verified a site has a multilingual interface, its article can go in the category. If you see an article in the category where the subject site doesn't actually qualify, you can take it out. But I don't see what benefit the list has as a standalone article; can you explain why this couldn't be done better as a category, or - taking into account your comments on individual multiple languages - a series of categories (websites with Tagalog interface, websites with Finnish interface, etc etc)? ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 16:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my answers to your four questions. (1) This list, like many other lists on Wikipedia, makes no claim to be complete in its inclusion of entries. (2) This list makes no claim to be up to the minute in the details for each entry. Additional information is in my post of 21:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC). (3) The expression "interface language" is unambiguous, and it matches the sense used for Category:Multilingual websites. (4) I explained the advantage of a list in my post of 23:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC).

—Wavelength (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Farbfeld

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

Insufficient evidence of notability. I can't find any secondary sources at all. IagoQnsi (talk) 03:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not finding anything useful. Happy Squirrel (talk) 03:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable because it is relatively new and has not gained much support (yet). This can change but for now it is not enough DeVerm (talk) 01:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Likely to become notable in due time if it catches on, but based on existence of nothing but these tech-spec sources, not there yet.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Recreation should go via DRV Fences&Windows 00:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Chenelly

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Joe Chenelly (2nd nomination)

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

blatant self promotion. already deleted once. see here Lagnansagnan (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 02:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 02:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Callum Stretch

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

Teen player who does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSPORT. ubiquity (talk) 01:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This wikipedia page shouldn't be deleted because this is a true player who represents the US at its highest level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronald Stretch (talk • contribs) 01:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Ronald Stretch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete WP:TOOSOON for this currently non-notable youth, certainly does not meet WP:NSPORT.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I myself reviewed and tagged this, nothing at all convincing. See also Callum stretch (please delete too). SwisterTwister talk 03:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSPORT per nom. Insert CleverPhrase Here 10:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully professional league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Dcirovic (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Obvious WP:AUTOBIO by creator and WP:COI from the one supporting user. --Drm310 (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly fails all relevant guidelines -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. @Ronald Stretch: The highest level is the actual national team and doesn't count the youth teams (all of United_States_men's_national_under-18_soccer_team#Current_squad is red otherwise). However, if you can still find reliable sources showing a general level of notability, it may be worth keeping but it doesn't seem likely. Basically he's not quite there yet so we'll have to see in the future. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 07:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Al Shorta SC#Supporters. There is consensus for the page to be redirected to where it has originally been mentioned. The first two contributors have not stated their opposal so I am closing this debate with a redirect to be implemented. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 01:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ultras Green Harp

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

Not notable. This is essentially a fan-page. The "references" are all the group's social networking links. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 02:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 02:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The mere existence of a fan group does not make it notable. I checked, and can find no wider sources even mentioning them. In particular, there seem to be no news reports mentioning them. Fieari (talk) 03:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of independent notability. Eldumpo (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In hindsight I probably shouldn't have made this a separate article (although I do believe it is worthy of coverage on Wikipedia as they are one of Asia's biggest fan groups). Therefore I have moved most of the content of the page onto the Al Shorta SC article. I don't mind if this article gets deleted. Hashim-afc (talk) 20:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Al Shorta SC#Supporters where it is already mentioned. Giant Snowman 17:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Per GiantSnowman. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 07:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Per GiantSnowman. Plausible search term on a subject mentioned in club article, no indication of significant reliable coverage in independent source to support GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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