Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 29 May	31 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stray Cinema

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

I found this article months ago and I nominated it for speedy in December with which it was removed and added a source, however with the comment that it was still questionable therefore here we are at AfD. FWIW, my searches have found nothing better than this. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep per meeting WP:ORG through coverage. Sorry nominator, your google-foo must be broken. I found non-PR in Inside Film, The Age, Screen Daily, and others. This needs work, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MQS's analysis. Passes WP:GNG. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, 2 sources above only mention this "film" in passing and make no comment on its merit and the other is only promotional and very short.--Grahame (talk) 01:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

creator:(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)

Response @Grahamec: With a bit more digging, it actually seems there is far wider coverage available of "Stray Cinema" and open source films: Daily Telegraph, Brisbane Times, The Age, Open Source, Sydney Morning Herald, Encore Magazine, Open Business (1), Open Business (2), Medien ABC (German), Scoop, Courier Mail, The New Zealand Open Source Society, DV Guru, etc. And so rather than it being just one specific film, it is also a locus where filmmakers can get footage to create their own projects using that open source footage. Those sources shared, I think if not found notable to Australia and/or New Zealand through coverage and expanded with the FOUND sources, it could serve our readers if partly merged to open-source film and then this "article title" redirected there. Thoughts? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am satisfied with any redirect or such, whatever is best. SwisterTwister talk 18:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 21:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per MQS. Insert CleverPhrase Here 00:36, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I believe the coverage I found and offered shows the topic as meeting WP:GNG and that this topic has the notability enough to merit a keep. My mentioning a merge and redirect was only a secondary consideration. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 23:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but without a strong objection to Merge and Redirect to Open-source film if there's anything to merge. That's an impressive list of sources, but upon inspection most are brief mentions and a whole lot of them are the exact same article printed in different places. Certainly fails WP:NFILM/WP:GNG, but if there's something to use over at the open-source film article, go for it (that article, by the way, is currently an indiscriminate link farm, but that's another issue). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, guideline tells us that when we have few substantial sources, multiple less-than-substantial ones can show a notability. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: Specifically to which guideline do you refer? Insert CleverPhrase Here 04:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Insertcleverphrasehere: "Specifically" I use the community standards set by WP:N. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: "specifically" what part of WP:N as I am not aware of any such guideline allowing us to ignore the 'significant coverage' part of 'significant reliable sources' in favour of a large quantity of trivial mentions (as you appear to be suggesting). I have had another read through WP:N and have not found what it is you refer to, perhaps I have missed it or else misunderstood your above comment? Note that your above attempted link to WP:SUBSTANTIAL is a dead link, so again it is unclear to what you refer. Insert CleverPhrase Here 20:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC) <outdent>[reply]

@Insertcleverphrasehere: Wow. Have you never read WP: BASIC and its instruction "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". And in a personal intepretation of trivial, you may be forgetting "directly and in detail" does not mandate it also be reams of coverage. What may have been lost on you is that the proffered link to WP:SUBSTANTIAL is intentionally red to underscore that SUBSTANTIAL is NOT a guideline requirement. So in looking past what is not a guide, we have WP:GNG which is a guide. And if we understand it as a guide, it does not suggest that editors banter over it as an existing community standard, nor that we blithely ignore the {already offered) coverage available of "Stray Cinema" on Daily Telegraph, Brisbane Times, The Age, Open Source, Sydney Morning Herald, Encore Magazine, Open Business (1), Open Business (2), Medien ABC (German), Scoop, Courier Mail, The New Zealand Open Source Society, DV Guru, etc. That you may personally choose to ignore coverage is a choice I personally do not make... nor will I participate in truly unnecessary arguments in the face of existing guide instructions. Thank you and best of luck. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, before you start to crow... the notability guide WP:BASIC is from Wikipedia:Notability (people)... but as a part of a very serious guide toward personages, it certainly can be applied to less critical topics. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This rather elitist tirade is rather inappropriate. I asked for the guideline you were referring to, and you cited WP:Notability but the statement you were talking about was in WP:Notability (people), so you can't blame me for not finding it in WP:N. I don't have any objection to the guideline, or applying it here, I just wanted to know where it was. So thank you for finally providing it. As for the whole "red link is intentionally red, sorry its lost on you", you might consider that this is confusing, to anyone who doesn't already know what you are talking about. Insert CleverPhrase Here 22:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO's WP:BASIC is a part of the parent WP:N and, in its dealing with people, is a more critical guideline. I had no intention to sound "elitist", and was simply attempting instruction that less-than-substantial sources are acceptable per notability guideline. I personally like sources that are in depth and substantial, but that wish is not the rule. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're still listing all of those sources like they're all separate, reliable sources. Let's look at all of them:

The Telegraph, Brisbane Times, The Age, and SMH are all the same source. Between them we have the one good source of the bunch.
Scoop is a press release, and does not help with notability.
MediaABC is a self-published wordpress.com blog.
Couriermail is a throwaway that says nothing about the subject other than quoting from it
DVGuru says little more than it exists.
nzoss looks like it drew directly from the press release, and one would be hard pressed to pass a blog post by an open source society as a reliable source to establish notability of an open source film, I think (but again, it looks to be a version of the press release).
this openbusiness source is a press release (note "We aim to become ..." first person)
The above use of first person without qualification casts some doubt on the reliability of the other openbusiness article, an interview, seemingly indicating some connection between openbusiness and stray cinema. In any event, openbusiness doesn't even look to say anything about itself on the websites (at least in the pages linked through the archive), and I don't know what reason we have to think it's a reliable source.
Encore is another "this thing exists" blog blip.
The Opensource.com is written by one of the people involved with Stray Cinema, Michelle Hughes.
So in that long list is one decent source. While I agree with the way you describe WP:BIO, I don't see how this comes anywhere near satisfying that set of criteria. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon but just as with suggested archive site The Wayback Machine, being archived at a site does not mean that archives of the separate reliable sources The Telegraph, Brisbane Times, The Age, and Sydney Morning Herald are somehow the "same source", nor does it denigrate everything ever archived. Archives are archives, but thank you. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything at all about being archived meaning they're the same source? They're the same source because they're literally the same source. The same article published in multiple places. Allow me to quote the first paragraph from each:

Hence, same source (as it says at WP:N "It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works." — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... so how we disregard all bad sources, and you pick your favorite one from among the four media sources that published that article authored by news stringer James Clasper, and then add it to the Inside Film article authored by Don Groves and then add the Screen Daily article authored by Jeff Cartwright, and perhaps grant that three independent sources meet WP:GNG? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: Aside: What happened here? Why did you add Robert McClenon's name to the signature? I don't see an indication that Insertcleverphrasehere is an alternate of RM? Or is "Robert McClenon" a clever phrase? :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An unintentional error. Sorry Robert Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am definitely not an alternate for Robert McClenon. Insert CleverPhrase Here 02:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Who rang, and why? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An unintentional error. Sorry Robert Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. Article's been improved and sourced since nomination which no one seems to have any issues with so closing as snow keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothin Personal

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

Non-notable mixtape failing WP:NALBUMS. See also the argument by In ictu oculi at Talk:Nothin Personal#Requested move 29 March 2016. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge any relevant (is there any) content into artist bio. Seriously how many mixtapes should be in an encyclopedia? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I fixed the article with mutiple secondary sources and relevant information about the mixtape. Nba-fan-11 (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hmm, at best, because this is one I would've simply let pass, but since we're here and it currently still seems questionable for its own article, delete instead. SwisterTwister talk 18:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 21:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 01:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as one of the leading singles, "My Side", is featured on Spotify. With physical copies of the mixtape being sold online and on tour, this shows it's notability and relevancy. Multiple secondary sources included as well. Nba-fan-11 (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 23:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Soooo, @In ictu oculi, GeoffreyT2000, and SwisterTwister: you guys know "mixtape" in this context does not mean "greatest hits" or "compilation", right? It's not 20 songs that all have the word "love" to tell that special someone just how you feel. A hip hop mixtape is, for all intents and purposes, an album. Usually it just means it was released for free online rather than through a record label. This got coverage from Pitchfork, MTV, Hip Hop DX, Complex, The Source, Stacks Magazine, Uproxx, Medium (author writes for Billboard)... and those were just on the first few pages of ghits. Not all of them are deep, but it's plenty to satisfy WP:NALBUM. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Rhododendrites. Notability has been safely established for this topic through the sites cited above. Aoba47 (talk) 06:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothin Personal has been treated as an album by using promotion, singles sold exclusively on Spotify, and physical copies being sold online and on tours, but the only difference being digital versions were released for free. The article contains many notable and reliable sources as Rhododendrites and Aoba47 explained. Nba-fan-11 (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tru Vilakazi

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

Autobiography of student and part-time musician, not yet notable per WP:MUSICBIO. No significant coverage online from WP:RS. At best, WP:TOOSOON. OnionRing (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Obvious case of WP:TOOSOON. I agree with the arguments made by OnionRing, no true significance as as musician and therefore does not meet the standards of WP:MUSICBIO. V.Putnam (talk) 23:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's simply still nothing actually convincing how there's solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close.. Opened in error. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bothrops asper

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

Meant to nominate a redirect (Yellow jaw) not the article itself sorry, first time tonight I have done that, take this out no intent to nominate the article for deletion. Sorry. Si Trew (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. Clearly an error. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Acute angle-closure glaucoma

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

This is in the pic cap but not in the body of the text. (Neelix) Si Trew (talk) 22:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speediest close You've actually nominated Glaucoma to which the other redirected. Johnbod (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close Yes, this is a clear mistake --Mark viking (talk) 22:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the purpose was to delete the redirect, that is ill-advised, too. The term occurs in multiple places in the glaucoma article, for instance in Glaucoma#Primary glaucoma and its variants. --Mark viking (talk) 23:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bratz: Genie Magic Soundtrack

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

Non notable album, nothing of value in article and completely unsourced.*Treker (talk) 00:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it falls WP:NALBUMS. Aoba47 (talk) 06:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's still nothing at all to insinuate how it can actually be confirmed as independently notable, it's unlikely it would be anyway since it was only an album for the series. SwisterTwister talk 07:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kelm Pond

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

No indication of meeting WP:GNG, WP:NGEO. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 04:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 04:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unremarkable and non-notable small body of water. Reads like a tourist guide. Searches find nothing about the body of water, just lots of refs to real estate in the area. Neiltonks (talk) 11:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as stated above, "unremarkable and non-notable". Kierzek (talk) 13:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found two mentions of Kelm Pond in Google Scholar: "The 50 m by 5 km Kelm Pond is layered anorthositic gabbro to gabbroic anorthosite with an ultramafic layer comprising phlog+oliv+spinel-bearing hornblende clinopyroxenite." and "The Kelm Pond body comprises high-Al clinopyroxene (with spinel exsolution)+forsterite+ phlogopite+spinel+hornblende and has been mostly serpentinized.". I have no idea what these mean... --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per wp:GEOLAND, and thanks to link provided by User:Malcolmx15. There has been substantial study of this unusual lake and rock formation. The article should be about both. It seems to me that "Kelm Pond" may be shorthand for the "Kelm Pond body" or some other full name for the magma-based rock formation that is a Sill (geology) type of pluton, i.e. it is a tabular sheet intrusion, presumably 50 metres (160 ft) by 5 kilometres (16,000 ft), formed by magma invading along a weak layer between sedimentary or other rock layers. The rock formation perhaps now creates the modern pond by forming a dam (as in common usage, not meaning a Dike (geology) which is another kind of pluton). Anyhow, there is plenty out there about this, and it is good to let the students and other scientists who are studying the geology of the area to continue to develop this. Let Wikipedia grow, don't shut down incipient efforts by potentially valuable future academicly-oriented editors. --do ncr am 04:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best instead and mention however as needed at the local community's article as there's at best nothing to suggest its own actual independently notable article. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But the Chestertown, New York article is about a hamlet, which is perhaps nearby but does not include Kelm Pond itself, and is not a geography / geology type article, and the info would be out of place. So mentioning this at a "local community" article and redirecting to there doesn't seem feasible, unless there is another potential redirect target that I don't see. --do ncr am 21:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft. From doncram's comments, it sounds like there could be an interesting and encyclopedic article written about this body of water, but the current article isn't it. I'm tempted to say keep, because AfD is not for cleanup, but that's an argument which fits better on a topic which is more obviously notable. While I suspect there might be a decent article which could be written here, it's not obvious that's the case, so it would be a stretch to apply that argument here. So, move it to draft, socialize the existence of the draft on the appropriate geology-oriented wikiprojects, and hopefully something will grow here which can get moved back to mainspace eventually. I would not be opposed to a keep outcome, but incubating in draft seems better to me. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sources have been provided for over a week, no one has rebutted that they amount to significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Jenks24 (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phanfare

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

Taking this to AfD due to recent disputes as to notability. I am going to go with a very weak delete, as notability seems to be somewhat dubious. All given sources appear to be either first party sources or unreliable sources. If somebody can find some decent third party reliable sources, I would be happy to withdraw this nomination. Safiel (talk) 06:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note I transcluded this properly, but sometime later, somebody screwed up the log, removing a bunch of tranclusions. Thank god for bots that fix everything. :) Safiel (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still nothing actually convincing for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic meets WP:WEBCRIT and WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. Many of these sources were easily found using the Find sources template atop this nomination. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - the sources linked by Northamerica1000 look to creep by WP:GNG — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep as per sources found by NorthAmerica.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete' as I agree with concerns of SwisterTwister 89.100.120.104 (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC) — 89.100.120.104 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

See WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 16:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kira Gelineau

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

Child voice actress. Does not meet the requirements of WP:NACTOR or more importantly WP:GNG. Pichpich (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with Pichpich. Does not meet the requirements of WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. I motion to delete. V.Putnam (talk) 22:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC for lack of available sources that do more than mention her name.- Mr X 22:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems likely to meet WP:NACTOR with "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows". An unclear but consistent role in 23 episodes of Super Why!, and a second-place sidekick character in Creative Galaxy, according to IMDb. --McGeddon (talk) 10:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still by far nothing to suggest actual independent notability for an enhanced article. SwisterTwister talk 07:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article lacks any sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, speedily. Creating discussions where the principal reason for deletion is a valid speedily deletion criterion, and where nobody has contested deletion, serves no useful purpose and just wastes editors' time which could be more productively used on other work. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

XiaoWeiXiao

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

Not a notable person, and article creator has been blocked as a sock puppet. JDDJS (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 'Delete speedily, as a page created by a blocked editor in violation of a block. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wuxx

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

Not a notable person, and the creator has been blocked as a sock puppet. JDDJS (talk) 21:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question - @JDDJS: Why not WP:G5 these? I don't see any substantial edits other than the sockpuppet (the only one which looks big was actually just filling in bare references, which isn't a substantial improvement. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I could, but usually I like having an official discussion, but maybe you're right. JDDJS (talk) 04:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AKS 1

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

Satellite was never launched. Orphan page. No news since 2007. Apparently dead company. Only source quoted also casts doubts on project status. — JFG ^talk 20:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found a passing mention here, and that's it, but it says that the satellite exists even if it was not launched. Russian sources would likely be better.

One could argue for a permastub because (I assume) satellites are somewhat rare compared to the last software or gizmo on the market, as they are a larger order to manufacture, so they are all presumed to be more notable. Even then, I would like to see a RS demonstrating that it was a functional satellite - for all we know it could be a box of metal with a camera taped to it and completely improper to fly into space.

In any case, the claims about climate engineering are mostly WP:OR, so if kept we should stick with mention of the satellite. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as overall still nothing to suggest it was then or now independently notable, there's nothing convincing at all. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Venetian. Sandstein 06:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Venetian people

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

There is no ethnic group called 'Venetians,' they are simply Italians. Serafart (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems to be a mishmash of Adriatic Veneti and people from the city of Venice, who don't belong in the same article. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Republic of Venice~~ Venetian (disambig) (updated -- see note below), once home to a Venetian people. As this is unsourced and functionally redundant to that article, there's no sense keeping it, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An ethnic group or ethnicity is a category of people who identify with each other based on common language, ancestral, social, cultural, or national experiences. Reading Venetian nationalism, I found many points supporting the thesis of a modern Veneti ethnicity (starting after 1900, I would say). I agree that the introduction is more to the Adriatic Veneti. I don't agree that Venetian refers only to the people from Venice: Venetian is also used to identify historical to the large dominion of the Republic of Venice. Anyway, at most that would open a talk about renaming the article to Veneti people. Many Veneti consider Veneto to be a nation distinct from Italy and often refuse the validity of the result of the referendum with which Veneto was united with Italy in 1866. There must be something worth to trouble the Italian institutions to a harsh reaction after a informal referendum in 2014: Franco Rocchetta, former member of the Parliament, founder of Liga Veneta, was arrested, alleged to be a terrorist. He was later released from prison, but the message was clear. His fault ? endorsement of the Plebiscito.eu committee. Many Italians seem to feel a diversity from the Veneti, despising them by the insult polentone (Polenta eater), and accusing them of thinking only to work, with zero culture (today, the insult is extended by originating from south to all northerners, but it originated toward the Veneti). A culture of hard work, as opposed to that of the bella vita (good life), seems to cut across two different cultures. --Robertiki (talk) 09:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You've utterly failed to address anything relevant to a deletion discussion, which is where, by whom, and how extensively is this subject documented? This discussion is not about your or anyone else's opinions of politics and history. It's about what is reliably and independently documented. So far, we have the article's creator (also a major contributor to the deleted article, who can be found in the article's talk page saying that this thesis is not supported by any published histories because the whole world has completely "censored" it) citing xyrself in the re-created article (third citation, on a self-publishing WWW site) and you citing things about a Venetian language not a people. The challenge that this is an unsupported, undocumented, unreviewed synthesis, in violation of our no original research policy, has been put forward time and again: on the article's talk page in 2009, in a prior AFD discussion, and even at Deletion Review. Once again: Where are the sources for this subject, as synthesized and as claimed by this article's and the supporting self-published source's author not to have been documented by anyone? Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 12:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Uncle G, Robertiki, and Serafart: Well let's be clear about something: "Venetians"/"Venetian people" is most definitely a real subject. It's not just a language. It's part of Italy now, but Venetians are from the Republic of Venice, which we have an article about as well as History of the Republic of Venice. It was an independent city-state for centuries. If you're wanting for sources about "venetian people", a quick google book search turned up a whole lot. The problem isn't that this isn't a notable subject -- it's that this article seems confused (or at least confusing) in the way it combines people of the region, people of the historic region, and speakers of the language into one group. I don't know how much the terms are used in which ways these days, but I can see that this article doesn't offer readers anything beyond what is already covered at the Republic of Venice and other articles on the subject. Therefore redirect. I do believe that someone could recreate this article down the road and it would be acceptable, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - To Uncle G. Where ? People unhappy with taxes would automatically want to seceed ? No. Only if there is a underlying identity. So news like this and this looks to me as relevant. More about identity and more. Per definition there is a identity in play to collectively act against a centralized power. Also UN gives space. Only the language, but a first established piece of the identity. Whom ? Explain what you are asking for, please. How extensively ? Not very much, I would say. Perhaps it's a too pacific people, makes no news, perhaps you would say: lukewarm about their identity ? About the creator, please, split the replies, don't pull me on his wording. You are right that sources are missing. But it is no reason to cold suppress, without giving time to searching (I agree that the creator should have done a first job). If a common language, a cultural identity and a cultural memory (in Brazil, Mexico, United States) are not enough to warrant a waiting phase, then let us wait a "recreate" of this article in an acceptable way. --Robertiki (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CONTENTFORK. The article is just an incoherent mess and as said by User:Rhododendrites above it "doesn't offer readers anything beyond what is already covered at the Republic of Venice and other articles on the subject". I disagree with the redirect suggestion as the term is too ambiguous to be redirected somewhere (Adriatic Veneti, Venice, Veneto, Republic of Venice and a few others seem all relevant). Cavarrone 19:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that's a good point that it's ambiguous. I've updated my redirect target to point to Venetian, a disambiguation page which includes "historical inhabitants of the Republic of Venice" and can include any of those. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would not oppose such a redirect. Cavarrone 21:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neither me. Until I find the time or some one else makes the article more coherent. --Robertiki (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete instead altogether as there's nothing at all for its own actual article and the disambiguation listed has nothing for "Venetian people", only instead for other subjects. Anyone needing Venice would search that as is, SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @SwisterTwister: ? How is "Historical inhabitants of the Republic of Venice" disambiguated from "Venetians" not synonymous with "Venetian people"? If a Venetian is an inhabitant of a place, then a group of them would be Venetian people. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. Article has already been speedily deleted. (non-admin closure) --Dps04 (talk) 05:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lisk

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

Originally put up for PROD but deleted by article creator. Does not meet notability criteria per WP:NSOFT. Creator may have a conflict of interest. Drm310 (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drm310: I am in no way affiliated with the Lisk project I am interested in software development and Lisk is an interesting project. I will cite more independent webpages. I am not being paid by anyone this is voluntary contribution.

This article is in the public interest according to what Yahoo! Finance says. Lisk on Yahoo! Also cooperating with Microsoft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisked (talk • contribs) 21:18, 30 May 2016‎

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maplewood Mansion Glassboro

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

All I could find in terms of reliable sources are those three and a half lines captioning a photograph of the place. In particular, I found no evidence to back up the claim that it is registered as historic. All in all, I think that it doesn't quite meet the notability criterion. Pichpich (talk) 19:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A book about Glassboro, New Jersey contains this mention of the mansion, witha photo and a brief caption. There doesn't appear to be much more in other sources. Alansohn (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it may be locally historic but, aside from that, then there's simply nothing to suggest its own notable article. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I try to find a place where the house could be mentioned. This is about the house named "Maplewood" (probably not "Maplewood Mansion"), built in 1856 and occupied by Thomas Stanger and family (per google books source with pic mentioned by others above). The pic shows a Stick style house, and the Stanger family is prominent in Glassboro, and it looks like the house potentially could have significance high enough to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places (which does cover sites of local significance, if they are well enough preserved, etc.) There is no NRHP-listed historic district in Glassboro (per National Register of Historic Places listings in Gloucester County, New Jersey). If there was a pic of the house (not present in article), perhaps the house could be mentioned at an article about the Whitney(?) glassworks owned by the Stanger family, which was apparently very significant. About "HISTORY OF GLASS MAKING IN GLASSBORO NJ (1780-1929)", see here. Perhaps the appropriate level of coverage would be to include a picture of the house with a short caption. But there is no article about glassmaking in Glassboro as far as I can tell. (There is List of defunct glassmaking companies.) Or a pic could arguably be included in Glassboro, New Jersey#History, which mentions various names of glass companies there. (Or perhaps the house could be mentioned at the Whitney Mansion (Glassboro, New Jersey) article, an article about a National Register-listed house which I am only speculating could have some connection, if that article were expanded.) But with no pic currently available, and not much in the article to save, I have to conclude "Delete" is appropriate now. --do ncr am 21:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Yandell

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

Funimation voice actor but all his roles are supporting to minor ones, so it is not clear what he is most notable for and why he should stay around . No anime convention appearances that are typical for notable English voice actors. [1] His one role that might stand out is Bon Clay in One Piece but that's still a supporting character; not part of the main crew or THE primary antagonist of the story arc. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable voice actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he has several works but still nothing else to actually suggest solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Decent amount of roles, but no sources to back up notability. Esw01407 (talk) 12:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Émile Moreau (writer)

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

Italian Wikipedia it: Émile Moreau lists this playwright and screenwriter as author of:

Madame Sans-Gêne: According to the Bibliothèque nationale (BF) premiered 1893, co-author - filmed 1909, novelized 1894-95
L'évasion de Mr de La Valette (1909) (This is about Antoine Marie Chamans, comte de Lavalette#Flight and exile) According to the BF: "film script based on Moreau's work" - which is Madame de Lavalette, premiered 1899. This page says he wrote the scenario.
Cléopatre BF: 1890, co-author

We correctly list these among the works of Émile Moreau (playwright), as does the corresponding fr: Émile Moreau (auteur). His years are 1852–1922, which also fit the dates of the works far better than 1877–1959. Moreover, Émile Moreau (politician) has exactly the life dates given in the Italian article for the putative dramatist and screenwriter: 20 June 1877 – 28 January 1959. The indisputably real playwright was born and died in Yonne. The indisputably real politician was born and died in Quebec. The Italian article on the putative dramatist and screenwriter follows IMDb in having him born in Yonne and deceased in Quebec. I cannot find the second writer anywhere in the BF and conclude that he is an IMDb chimera, probably based on confusion with the politician. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I concur completely with Yngvadottir. I was the editor who "gutted" Émile Moreau (writer) when LouisAlain pointed me to the article he has recently created titled Émile Moreau (playwright). There is very little doubt that the Émile Moreau who collaborated with Victorien Sardou in 1890 to write Cléopâtre was not 13 years old at the time. One of the problems of IMDb is the inability of its contributors to distinguish between individuals with the same name when adding works attributed to them. What's left of our Émile Moreau (writer) article has nothing to indicate notability, or even whether a writer with those dates and name actually existed. --RexxS (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looks to me like two people are combined here, based on poor sources. I don't think the person existed. Montanabw ^(talk) 03:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Correct analysis. --Dereckson (talk) 11:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The 2011 version of the article was right, given that it has point by point agreement with what is being asserted is correct here. It's a shame that editors didn't go back to it, rather than starting a new article. All this duplication because one edit got some dates wrong. A simple redirect would solve the duplication, quickly and smoothly. Uncle G (talk) 12:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Sad - if that original version had only given his birth and death dates. I see that the French article was already in existence then - started in 2011 - but there was an article on a financier at the simple title in French. I didn't attempt to trace the history on Wikidata to see whether looking there at the time of that edit would have helped identify the correct dates and the existence of a lot of French material on the playwright. This should probably become a redirect in that case, or would you advocate swapping the disambiguators, moving the "playwright" article to "writer"? Yngvadottir (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I merely lean towards the simplest solution, enactable with just the edit tool. It's worth finding out what LouisAlain's opinion on the disambiguators is. Uncle G (talk) 13:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Looking back through the revision history of this article shows that the original editor, Neddyseagoon gave the wrong dates of birth and death on the day he created the article (18 February 2008) and immediately after, rejected them. The wrong dates were re-applied by Tjmayerinsf in January 2012. Various categories were added and deleted, as was persondata, and the article title was altered to make room for a dab page. Throughout the last five years, the article has remained completely unreferenced and consistently incorrect in the dates of birth and death, as well as the consequent categorisation. It also languished at a misleading title as Émile Moreau was a playwright, not a writer as we would usually understand the word. It's no surprise that LouisAlain didn't spot this compendium of errors when he translated and created Émile Moreau (playwright). So, Uncle G, could you tell us exactly what parts of this article or its history are worth preserving? --RexxS (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I haven't the slightest understanding of why the deletion of the article Émile Moreau (writer) seems to still be an issue. Not only are his dates erroneous but even the categories are wrong. He wasn't a French screenwriter, a male screenwriter, a French male writer, just nobody seems to know who that person may have been. Apparently, some editor mistook him for a Canadian politician after the Italian article. What a mess! LouisAlain (talk) 15:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he had a few several works but still nothing to suggest this can be improved to a substantially better article and likely never will considering the circumstances. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted A7 by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 14:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Bradford

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

Fails WP:GNG notability for lack of available reliable sources. - Mr X 18:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The "keep" arguments do not actually show that he satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. For example, a mere statement that someone is "a leading light" does not constitute evidence that there is substantial coverage, nor do three single-sentence mentions in books "clinch" the notability. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Chernoff

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

Delete - Notability has still not been established despite nine years of trying The Zeus is Ha-Zeus (talk) 22:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 00:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To me it has - why are you so against articles about Messianic Judaism. It seems your sole focus - indicating clear bias. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 07:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -To be a leading light in the movement - with influence on it's musical style and content, also as a focus for congregational and theological leadership - makes this person notable. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing of any substance to establish notability.TheLongTone (talk) 14:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Increased citations added - Also what causes to be notable other than to be a national leader in an international movement - with a personal international impact through his leadership roles and music. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 08:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cursory review of Google News sources show he's gotten international coverage for a variety of reasons in a variety of papers. GNG is met. Jclemens (talk) 09:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google Books clinches it with these citations: [2][3][4] St Anselm (talk) 10:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Google books does not establish notability.TheLongTone (talk) 11:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It shows significant coverage in reliable sources, such as the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music - that means the subject passes WP:GNG. St Anselm (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even with the updates, still does not establish notability. TiberiasTiberias (talk) 09:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 16:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real claims of notability have been established. V.Putnam (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches actually found a few links at Books and News but simply nothing noticeably convincing. SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zeroption

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

Non-notable, ephemeral, local band. Quasi-orphan page. — JFG ^talk 16:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Band lacks notability and coverage in independent reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 16:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I have found nothing better at all, there's simply nothing else actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. —SpacemanSpiff 16:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Aaron

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

The subject is about a former Indian cricket player. On a search I didn't found enough reliable sources which could satisfy general notability threshold. It fails Cricket specific notability guidelines of WP:CRIN and sport's notability guideline. Jim Carter 16:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - meets cricket specific notability guidelines and sports notability guidelines of one first-class appearance. Which cricket specific guidelines do you think it doesn't meet? And how do you suggest we adapt these guidelines so that cricketers which meet the criteria for notability should have a new guideline applied? Bobo . 16:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I suggest to freeze it.GreenCricket (talk) 10:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has played in a first-class match. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 10:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Churches

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

Unreferenced & tendentious. More suited to a dictionary Rathfelder (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And for its entire lifetime, the article has completely failed to explain that this is a concept in U.S. tax law. Uncle G (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 16:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIC. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As happens so frequently, my uncle is right. Softlavender, do the Google Book search and add "tax"--you'll see the point my uncle was making. Drmies (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I have hijacked the article accordingly. Rathfelder, please have another look--thank you. Drmies (talk) 13:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Definitely an improvement. But does it merit an article of its own? Can it not fit into something about US taxation?Rathfelder (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I can't answer that--when I play a lawyer I only do criminal cases. It's more exciting. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a result of Drmies' clarification of the article subject, moving it away from a simple dictionary definition. Articlespace is cheap. clpo13_(talk) 22:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a simple, efficient springboard to the sources now included, making it simple for someone looking for this type of entity to easily do further research. Trying to fit this concept into Taxation in the United States wouldn't help someone looking for this subject. Similarly, redirecting to an article section such as Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Tax_exempt_entities would also be unhelpful, as would further expanding that section to encompass this concept. Tax_exemption#Charitable_and_religious_organizations might get closer as a potential redirect target, but as another editor has pointed out above, article space is cheap. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever, but if you keep it please move from "Association of Churches" to "Association of churches".Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nickel (band)

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

Article about a band whose strongest claim of notability is that they had a cameo appearance in one episode of a television series. Nothing else here passes WP:NMUSIC, and exactly no reliable source coverage has been shown to get them over WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. This trivial mention from The A.V. Club seems to be about the best that's indexed on Google. A Google Books search doesn't show up any archived coverage from Billboard or Spin. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simply nothing actually better aside from the one event, searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 07:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voodoo Trombone Quartet

Seemingly NN musical group. Fails all 10 criteria of WP:MUSIC with the possible exception of #10 - being included in a limited version of a video game - which is not usually enough by itself. Signed with a WP:NN record label doesn't help the case. Toddst1 (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 04:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 04:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 15:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rare indeed is the AFD discussion where I can listen to the album whilst participating. However, that doesn't help to verify this article. There's nothing on the sleeve notes. There's nothing even on the subject's own WWW site. No-one else documents this group, either. I have found no way to verify anything bar 1 statement in this article, which is the name of 1 of its members, and an album title and record label, which the article at hand claims not to be the case. The only other thing that I found was a review saying that that member put fictional information on the WWW about the group. It did not actually provide any facts itself. I'm rewinding to track #6, and this subject is not documented in any in-depth independent reliable sources. Uncle G (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I have found nothing better at all and there's nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 07:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accell

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

Basically the best part of this article is the "one of the world's largest" but, as my searches have found only expected mention and nothing particularly substantially at Books, News, browsers and Highbeam. SwisterTwister talk 22:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 15:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing substantial found in sources. Tom29739 ^[talk] 17:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 16:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vicky Kewat

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

No indication of notability. This person is mentioned in only one of the cited references (scroll the staff list), which is not an independent source. The rest of the references are entirely spurious: they do not support any assertions in the article, or even mention the person. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing here at all suggesting the needed solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have removed all the fake references which didn't support a single fact and the primary source which only mentions the name. This seems to be a hoax or an attempt at promotion. Delete per WP:NOTPROMO. Also not notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I suspect this is a vanity article if it's not a hoax. 1.125.48.81 (talk) 10:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note to prove a conflict of interest here. See the other two AfD's in this group. 1.125.48.81 (talk) 10:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no reliable sources currently included in the article and my searching didn't turn any up either. Notability hasn't been established when judged against WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Just because this person might be known in India, it doesn't mean it should have a Wikipedia article as there are almost no sources that can confirm his significance. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Picture Frames (movie)

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

This (unsourced) short has received no discernable coverage in independent secondary-sources. It was previously deemed potentially notable due to the fact that it appeared to have starred Jennifer Garner in an early role (possibly meaning it "features significant involvement... by a notable person"). However, since then, it appears that this was a 'spelling mistake' (!!!) and it actually featured the unknown Jennifer Garretson. Thus we have a short film which has recieved no coverage; no full-length reviews; no awards; and in no other way fulfills the requiremets of WP:NFILM. Not even a page on IMDB, which, although not a reliable source, might at least confirm its existance if nothing else. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC) Delete As nominator. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:AFDFORMAT, nomination already counts as delete. A separate vote is not required. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Consider it an exercise in precision. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quoting the article The movie is oft hailed by critics as a disaster, although it has gained some footing in cult followings. Searches for "Elana Mitzerotzi" (actor) and "EGGRO Films" (producer) yield nothing except this Wikipedia article. I hereby conclude that this movie may have been produced in an alternate universe and should stay in the Wikipedia of that universe. How this information arrived here I do not know. Doesn't belong in this Wikipedia, unless someone sends some references through a wormhole. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In looking beyond:

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

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

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

Delete per failing WP:NF. Sadly, short films have it quite difficult, and this one has made no mark. Lacking coverage in reliable sources, it lacks notability. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 14:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all to suggest this has established solid independent notability but that's not surprising given the apparent reception this obtained. Nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 07:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails NF and no coverage at all. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 10:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Skin Cancer: Recognition and Management

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

Fails WP:NBOOK: no third-party sources, no claims of significance. — kashmiri ^TALK 14:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This book looks quite influential. There are many third-party sources and the book is widely cited. It was reviewed in the American Family Physician, Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England, British Journal of Dermatology, and much more. It is worth reading what Larry Millikan, chairman of dermatology at Tulane University, wrote in JAMA. Aionyann (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So many claims and not a single link? Bad bad bad! — kashmiri ^TALK 21:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources include a book review in JAMA, and another in Clinical Cornerstone. I don't know anything about Clinical Cornerstone, but the JAMA review looks solid. --Mark viking (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (leaning keep) - In addition to the book reviews, ~~WP:BKCRIT #4 might apply~~. But it is a hard one to prove (and I found nothing). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but #4 as I read it is about, say, literary works that are given to students as a study subject; not about handbooks that help with studying the curriculum. — kashmiri ^TALK 09:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, actually you are right, I retract that. The relevant footnote says "This criterion does not include textbooks or reference books written specifically for study in educational programs, but only independent works deemed sufficiently significant to be the subject of study themselves, such as major works in philosophy, literature, or science". I thought "or science" meant all non-textbook scientific books were okay but I guess its target is rather things such as the Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica. Clearly, the book itself is not (yet?) an object of study. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I guess that simply being a compendium it is not really groundbreaking enough to be an object of studies. Compendia like this one are published regularly, every few years (sometimes several a year!) in every area of medicine, as a handy reference book for students and medical consultants. Not sure this one merits inclusion in Wikipedia on its own - but if so, I can easily add a few dozen others in other areas of medicine. PubMed will perhaps give tens of thousand results - there should be at least one reference book for the majority of ~7000 described disorders. Regards, — kashmiri ^TALK 11:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found three reviews on my school database and I included as much information about them as possible. The difficulty level here is that since this is a textbook, most of the coverage is in places that don't really come up easily in a search and what does come up is on databases that can only be accessed via a membership. I also see where the work seems to be routinely listed as an authoritative source in places like here and here. This article needs to be expanded by someone more familiar with the topic, otherwise I could easily see someone make the argument that this could just redirect to its author's article. However that said, this does seem like it'd be easy to flesh out if someone knew what the book contained. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the reviews are perhaps enough to keep for now and any additional familiar attention would also help I imagine. SwisterTwister talk

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) 13:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Visser

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

Fails WP:BIO. Claim to notability is publication of four extremely obscure books (as in fails WP:BK) and hosting a website that fails WP:WEB. No independent notability claimed. jps (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sourced based claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Probably delete his main claim to fame is that he writes as a critic of one Ken Wilber who writes about something called Integral theory (Ken Wilber) which is WP:FRINGE. It would take a bit of effort to look more deeply, since it is not only FRINGE, but also requires a reading knowledge of Dutch; perhaps this topic is more appropriate for Wikipedia Netherlands. Possibly redirect to Integral theory (Ken Wilber) where Visser is mentioned. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The single argument for retention made here is in contrast to the applicable NMMA guideline. joe decker ^talk 16:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marcin Tybura

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

Non-notable MMA fighter with only one top tier fight and that was a loss. Does not meet WP:NMMA or WP:GNG. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the MMA notability criteria at WP:NMMA with only one top tier fight (and a loss at that). Coverage appears to consist solely of fight results, which is routine sports coverage and is insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Assuming he'll meet NMMA requires a crystal ball. He may become notable, but he's not there yet. Papaursa (talk) 15:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Former M-1 Global heavyweight champion. Poeticbent talk 04:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winning a second tier title does not meet the notability criteria for MMA fighters. Can you show that me meets WP:GNG? All I saw was routine reporting of fight results. Papaursa (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for the applicable notability and there's nothing to suggest convincing otherwise. SwisterTwister talk 07:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as withdrawn as the user nominating is apparently no longer continuing the nomination and even the 1 Delete vote is by a rather new user with only a few contributions the last being from January thus they have also not clarified this bias including since the newest changes and events. Keep as this also seems satisfying for the applicable schools notability (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 07:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VanArts

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

This article is written for nearly no other purpose than advertising. It does nothing but espouse positive aspects of the school and is clearly written with a promotional/marketing bias. It is written in length to the extent where it would appear credible to the untrained eye. Zero effort is made to attribute facts and statements to reliable sources, other than sources that are related to VanArts in some way. Cyanhat (talk) 02:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:This article has a clear bias towards the school and is clearly an advertisement for the school and not an actual informative article. As such it should be deleted or drastically edited. Vituhlz (talk) 02:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Lack of sources or promotional tone are not valid reasons for deletion. Cited issues can be fixed by editing or stubifying. Accredited post-secondary schools are generally considered notable per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. ~Kvng (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Notability is not at question here. Article fulfills deletion policy per reason 4: "Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)". I believe given the current state of the article and how intertwined uncited sources are within the article, it should be subject to WP:TNT at the minimum. If the article is stubbed or edited to the point where it is largely verifiable, I will change my position. However, I don't believe that is possible and it is better to start from scratch. Cyanhat (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I beleive these issues can be delt with through editing and I have taken a cut at it. Please let me know what you think. You too Vituhlz. ~Kvng (talk) 23:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after the removal of the promotional material by Kvng Mduvekot (talk) 12:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator - Article has been edited to an appropriate extent for significant reductions in promotional content. Will not be discussing further as I'm retiring as an editor. Cyanhat (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Albert (law professor)

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

I have removed the myriad of primary references, such as links to the person's SSRN abstracts, to try and get rid of anything that would obscure the reliable sources. Right now it appears all that is here, are university news blasts, and other institutional biographical material. I have searched online for RS, and can't find anything substantial. My only question is if the person's ASCL position qualifies them, but by my reading it doesn't. I think this is an example of WP:Too soon, but wanted a second opinion. So I AFDed instead of CSDed for promotional writing (which was rampant on the page until a few hours ago. Usterday (talk) 02:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I couldn't find evidence he passes WP:PROF. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as by far nothing here at all for any applicable notability, not convincing. SwisterTwister talk 07:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - newly tenured at middling law school. Bearian (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He just got tenure, he may one day be notable but is not yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

La Bella Beauty, Inc.

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

Nearly PROD and speedy material too, simply nothing convincing for any applicable notability and I have found nothing else better. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable under WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Tom29739 ^[talk] 20:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While there is some evidence presented that an appropriate article could be a possibility here, there also is a strong consensus that COI editing has made the current state of the article an unsalvageable mess. I would strongly recommend that if a future article is created, the individual who is the subject of the article stick to participation on and suggestions on the talk page rather than direct article edits. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Toreeva

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

Blatant autobiography of a Russian artist. Has she established her notability? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Pinging Materialscientist, who I believe has recently salted the recreation of this article.~~ _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as ~~total tosh.~~ Perhaps tosh is too strong a word; she's undoubtedly an artist, and undoubtedly known within the art-world. But I question her notability beyond that sphere; the sources are comprised primarily of blogs, worldcat, imdb, etc, and fail to demonstrate any long-term, inherent notability, as would be demonstrated by independent sourcing. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Spending 40 minutes trawling through all those references, including translating some from Ruissian, was worse than hunting Unicorns. None of them provide any realistic support for independent notability. Fails WP:GNG and looks very much like self publicity. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I accepted the AfC, and I think she is notable. There are several references in the article (all in Russian) which demonstrate notability. However, I already regret the decision, as the author immediately flooded the article with a irrelevant stuff, and, when I tried to help, she has thrown even more stuff on me (mainly basing the arguments on WP:OTHERSTUFF), so that I gave myself a word to never ever touch the article again. This is a nice example why people should not write autobiographies.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: After posting my !vote above, it occured to me that most of the crap sourcing seemed to be in the (in any case excessive) biblographical section. I have been WP:BOLD (feel free to revert, of course) and removed this, with the intention of showing what remains- and whether that is indicative of notability? E.g., 'St Petersburg's Encyclopaedia', maybe? Cheers, _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At least Saint Petersburg Encyclopedia, Expert (current Ref. 9) and Smena (Ref. 10; can not open it now but I believe I have read it before).--Ymblanter (talk) 14:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm....Ref 10 has a barely evanescent mention of Natalia Toreeva - certainly not anything approaching notability. Ref 9 also has a single passing mention as

There were his disciples Anatoly Basin, Natalia and Yuri Toreeva Nashivochkin, create your own work of art association "Temple Wall", what is the next section of the exhibition is provided. In sidlinskoy school he stopped me, "Portrait of a mother" Toreevoy. From the gloom displayed ugly beautiful face of an old woman. Natalia Toreeva worked as an artist at the "Lenfilm". She worked at the Alexis Herman, when he filmed "Twenty Days Without War". There are strange convergence. Why do I remember this movie, looking at the "Portrait of a mother?" Because the portrait about the same as a movie. About the ill time and beautiful people, the share of which it got.

Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse Wall of Text from WP:NPOV / WP:COI editor, mentioned by Ymblanter above.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hello, this is Natalia Toreeva, the "real" person from your article. I can see several problems here. In parallel I am doing my input into Soviet Nonconformist Art article, specifically 1960-1980, the movement I was part of it. Ans since in Russia almost no one speaks/write in English, they asked me to do my input. I feel it is my obligation also to write about that time and artist groups where I knew and communicated with almost all artists and groups I mentioned in the article. And since for example, in Arefiev group, only one artist still alive, I feel it is time to make my input. But it is hard to find the references of that time in USSR. I have all the books I gave to the editors for the references, but some books are with ISBN which is hard to find on Internet, but some I found have OCLC at least. Another problem, the references I submitted to your editors are some in English, some in Russian, therefore who does not know Russian, can easily reject the references. The article about the International exhibition ("Dialogues"), 2013, is by Nikita Eliseev, where he described his vision about the exhibition, including the "School of Sidlin", and where he described my painting. What was wrong with it? Why it is not notability, where several hundred art works were included in this International exhibition, and only several artists names in his article? The problem was since your editors were busy, even though I asked for help the Teahouse several times, I started put in the article several references (in English and Russian), so it would be easier for the editors to see the references. Even some editors, DGG, or Bgwhite, or in Teahouse (arch. #484) talked not about notability but about Improvement the article, which should not be put into Delete category. Also, I have mentioned that my art works in 5 museums in their permanent collection, but the museums don't have the web sites to show you about theie art collections. I have the official documents about it, but you don't accept the emails. I checked another's artists web site, for example, Alek Rappoport, and they have mentioned only the list of museums, not direct reference to the record. You can't find it anywhere. So why the names of museums with my art works were deleted? Also, I'm a Member of the Artist Trade Union of Russia, and in 2011, they put me in another category as International Artists Rating, in their Reference book (http://www.10000best.com/be2-20.htm) of Artists Trade Union of Russia, listed 10,000 best world artists of XVIII-XXI centuries. Why this reference was deleted? Also, it was mentioned in Filmography my works as the Artist/Costume Designer. The director (Alexei German) received the Award for 3 films, including the film "Twenty Days without war", where I worked. If the actor receives any award, it is his award, but if the film received award, all crew worked on the film, is awarded. By the way, I mentioned also, that after my emigration from USSR, my name was deleted from the titles of the films, but restored after falling of Soviet Union, 1991. I included also references in Filmography (in imdb.com, in English, and http://www.kinopoisk.ru/name/2016607/ in Russian, where also not all my films included. For example, I worked on 2 films with DEFA (German Film studio), and after Falling WALL in Berlin, all the records were lost, as they answered on my email to Germany. Soooooo, this is my short story. I hope, you will look on the article, which was written by your editor (Ymblanter), for which I appreciate, with my some input of the references to make the editing more easier, and not from delete/reject the article attitude, but from helping to improve it. Thanks in advance.Toreeva (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and (re)salt. Not sure why RHaworth restored this after it had been deleted and salted. Promotional autobiography of a non-notable person. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hope every editor has independent opinion about the article and its content. I'm not only Russian Artist, I'm also American Artist. And Joseph2302, please stop harassing me and follow everywhere demanding the deletion of the article and 5 drawings I copyrighted and don't have any problem with the submission to wiki. The article was not salted. It was the couple of pages before, and now has just one sentence. Where is the bio or promotional content? Non sense. All the info about my art work, paintings, drawings, my written and illustrated children books, which now in the permanent collection in the different museums, are deleted. I don't know you, your motives, but your action is definitely not in a good faith, and does not make the good face for the Wikipedia.Toreeva (talk) 23:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What we need are publications that tell something of substance about the person. Even information that she belongs to certain school can be found only on obscure websites. Was anything about this person published in newspapers, journals or books? When and where she was born? Is she considered an outstanding/good/notable artist? Did she receive any honors? What she is known for? All of that should be documented in publications in newspapers, journals, books, reliable news websites, etc. For example, working on films is great, but this is not a good source because it tells nothing. Do you have any publications telling why work by this artist in these movies was important? I do not see anything so far. If there is something, could you please give the references/links below? Simply having having a list of her works like here is not enough. We need publications about her to establish notability. Thank you, My very best wishes (talk) 03:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~OK, I found one. What else? My very best wishes (talk) 03:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

(OK, I found a sufficient number of secondary sources about this person My very best wishes (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Comment. I think she actually satisfy WP:Artist - #3 ("The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work"). Was her role in these books and films "major"? Yes, because her contribution was necessary. No secondary sources about the person are required in such cases per guidelines. My very best wishes (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Soviet Nonconformist Art#School of Sidlin. I'm not seeing sufficient notability for a stand-alone page. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking through both the sources and conversations, I find that I agree with Joseph2302. I do not speak Russian but this certainly does appear to be a promotional autobiography.
I'm not sure a redirect to Soviet Nonconformist Art#School of Sidlin is required, but it costs nothing and is probably the best course to follow. The only problem is that the subject may decide to turn the redirect page back into an article. If this IS turned into a redirect - rather than being salted again - eyes should remain on the redirect page to make sure it STAYS a redirect page. David in DC (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd accept a redirect if and only if the redirect was fully protected, so no-one could revert back to the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TNT delete. When Ymblanter has read the sources in the original language, I hesitate to disagree with his assessment that the subject qualifies for WP:BIO. However, everyone's in agreement that the entire history of this article is junk. Let's just get rid of the current mess but allow someone else to create an article on this notable person. Nyttend (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend, this is what I asked from the beginning that someone would help with the editing. The problem is that some of the references are in Russian, some in English. And also the editor needs to understand the Art in Russia, specifically the ""underground" art of the Soviet Nonconformist movement, that you can't find in newspapers since it was an Unofficial art, before the falling of Soviet Union in 1991. As Plato said: "A good decision is based on knowledge and not on numbers".

1) If you can look into deleted the Draft:Natalia Toreeva, there is more explanation why the "School of Sidlin" is important for the history of Russian art. In short, O. Sidlin was the student of the Kuzma Petrov-Vodkin and Kazimir Malevich, which is the beginning of the Nonconformist Art in Russia (and in the World) in 1920-1930e. Same is true for another "Sterligov" artists group. And as someone told that the webs were used are not real one, it is not true: http://www.encspb.ru/object/280472958?lc=ru (Toreeva's name in Russian there: Н. Тореева). This web (and other webs with www.encspb.ru) is created by the St. Petersburg Encyclopedia under the Committee of Culture of St. Petersburg, the government art page. It is the most reliable source. In this Draft 32 references were included, so if the editing can be made, there are enough ref. to select. In the current article, only 10 references are left after the deletion.

2) In that Draft, the diff. sections were created, which I followed the articles of other our artists. For example, a) Education. I have 2 Masters Degrees. MA in Arts (in Russia), and MS in Computer Science (in USA). I retired as the system analyst with 5 Patents in IT company, where I worked. One of your editor told me that I have to clean up the article since there enough notability, but Patents info definitely I should keep. My Education section was deleted. b) Filmography, which also was deleted. I worked on "Lenfilm" film studio as the Artist/Costume Designer. As I mentioned there, our director (Aleksei Yuryevich German) was top 5 directors on WWII, and who received several Awards for his films, including "Twenty Days Without War", where I worked. I remember, when we celebrated it, our scenarist, famous Russian poet, Konstantin Simonov, came to me and gave me a strong handshaking for my work on the film. I still remember his Russian handshake. But you can't read about this film and awards in any newspaper of that time, since this film was put on the shelf and was released only in 1987, due to the difference of the vision on WWII in this film in comparison with the Soviet Union political view. But it does not mean that notability of the Artist's work is not there. You can read about the director and this film in wikipedia. Just for your info: when Stalin died in 1953, at the same day died our world known composer, Prokofiev. But his death info were not included in any newspaper. But it does not mean that his name does not have notability. c) I'm the Member of Art Union of Russia, and in 2011, they included me in their Reference book as the 10,000 best world artists of XVIII-XXI centuries. It is governed by the Artists Union of Russia, reliable source as well. http://www.100000best.com/be2-20.htm This also was deleted. d) Museums: My artwork in the permanent collection of 5 museums. 3 museums in Russia, and 2 museums in USA. Why in another artists articles they just mentioned the names of the museums without the direct references, which does not exist, but you deleted this section from my article? e) Publications: I wrote and illustrated 3 children's books that are now in the museum in Russia. The editor's page: http://sbpra.com/NataliaGToreeva/ I also included other books with my illustrations, including the "Christmas in Russia" and "Twenty Faces of Boris Pasternak, noble poet of Russia, who was not permitted to receive the Award by the government. These books illustrations are also in museum in St. Petersburg. I have the official documents, but you don't accept the emails to prove that my art work in museums. f) In 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986, 1987: Natalia G. Toreeva's drawings were included in the New York Russian language newspapers and journals: "Novy Svet" ("New World"): issues #91, #92, 1981; Satirical journal "Petooch" ("Rooster"): issue 4, 1983; "Novoe Russkoe Slovo" ("New Russian Word"): the articles by L. Parkhomov "Creative work of Natalia Toreeva", 1985, "The World of Natalia Toreeva", about her "Solo" exhibition in the Stuart Art Center Gallery in Chicago, 1986; "Almanac Panorama": issue 246,1986; article the "Concert for Voice with Accent", issue 318, 1987, New York, USA. I deleted this section since I have the originals of these newspapers/journal, but not references to them. That's why I asked for help if someone from editor can access to these data. No response.

3) I don't include here the webs to the books publishing and exhibitions, they are in the articles and could be used for the appropriate selection.

So, please review your decision about the article with the good faith. This is my quote I teach my children, and seems related to this topics: "You don't make me low (since I earned my place in history), but you do low of yourself." And I would like to end it with Plato's quote "Opinion is the medium between knowledge and ignorance". I'm opened for any help in improvement of the article. Thanks for your time.Toreeva (talk) 00:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Ymblanter makes a convincing argument that it is possible to write an article on this person, using sufficient sources in Russian, but Nyttend also makes a valid point that we won't be able to get a neutral article out of this without a completely independent third party being involved. However, I think the uber-small stub we now have is a good enough starting point. I am just getting comfortable with parsing Cryllic in my head, let alone any actual Russian, and I don't really have enough grasp on artist biographies to be able to sit down and improve the article into something that will stick. The only possible other option I can do is sound the "experienced female BLP writer alarm" and ping @Rosiestep: and @SusunW: and see if they can work some magic.

Looking at Toreeva's comments above, I would advise the following - having academic qualifications does not give you a free pass to notability, you need to have something equivalent to a tenured position at a university, which means you will get regular academic publications produced under your name. I'm happy to AGF that publishing books might be suitable if they have been easily documented as best sellers or have achieved widespread critical acclaim in national publications. The Member of Art Union of Russia reference book might be important, but it would depend on how many other names are mentioned in the book. If it's the art equivalent of Burke's Peerage or Who's Who, it's suitable, if it lists just about anyone in a union (broadly equivalent to the Equity register), it's not really unique enough to consider. The important point to remember in a biographical article is - what will people be saying about you in 100 years' time? That's what we're aiming to document. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was one of the editors who tried working on this article after a post at WP:COIN. I trust Ymblanter's judgement that the subject is notable. I can fully understand that the press at that time was probably controlled by the Soviet government which explains a lack of sources. However, I gave up on the article after being constantly requested to add references to a non-notable local writers' group. Personally I think the stub right now seems OK. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep minus cruft Can stay a stub until better sources can be added. Individual appears to pass notability, just needs to not edit her own article. COI ≠ a notability problem, just a sourcing and tone problem. Montanabw^(talk) 05:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can include the edition of references into Talk section of this article, as My very best wishes suggested, so the editors can select whatever appropriate to choose for the article. I will add the newspapers in New York, year and number of publications hoping that someone has approach to their archive. I will not add much to overflow the input, just small input. Regarding the Member of Art Union: they have the explanation in their web, but in short: To get into the Artists Union of Russia the artist should be selected into their 7 categories. The number of artists in the Union of Russia is about 50,000, and is different for each year. But to be selected into International "10,000 best world artists of XVIII-XXI centuries" category, they have only selected 10,000 artists that have upper 1-3 category. For example, Picasso = category 1, etc. http://www.10000best.com/be2-20.htm to see the Reference book. They don't put the category number here (only for galleries/museums), but they sent an official document to the artist. You can use this reference for whatever artist you want to verify. As an example, in our "School of Sidlin", our teacher, O. Sidlin=2 category, and only 4 of us (Y. Nashivochnikov, A. Basin, I. Ivanov, and N. Toreeva), are included in this Rating category (=3 category). So, for just Members of Artists Union = up to 7, for International Rating = upper 3 categories. This info is not for promotional purpose, but for quick understanding how their system of selection is built. Also, just for your info, I submitted 5 drawings, and they pass the copyright info by your editors. But I will not included all 5 into the talk page, since if only one should be selected, I prefer to have this computer graphics (1992) what you have now in the article, because it best reflects the falling of USSR (in 1991), as you can see it as the "grinding machine" and importance dates of the Soviet system there. I will let you know, when I will finish my input into the talk page. Thanks.Toreeva (talk) 13:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Artist trade Union of Russia is a personal pet project of Sergey Zagrayevsky who is not really notable as artist or art historian. I think in Russian Wikipedia they at some point decided it is on the level of spam.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have pages Artists Trade Union of Russia and Sergey Zagraevsky. This is quite possibly an RS, not a spam My very best wishes (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles were started by User:Ozolina, a personal secretary of Zagraevsky.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Osolina is not secretary, she is the Staff editor, they both have PhD, and he is awarded prof. in Arts. This is the web, but the the Artists Union itself is an official organization supported by government. They don't take any promotions/money from galleries, artists, museums, they have own committees to select artists in the Artists Union. It is definitely not a spam. And every artist is proud to be included there.Toreeva (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, she was just his student [5], and both articles were written in the COI. Obviously, as a COI editor yourself, you do not see a problem in COI editing, but I hope other users do.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... We also have United Art Rating (i.e. the source under discussion) and this deletion discussion. Actually, Zagraevsky looks to me as someone highly notable. There was even a little poem by Bulat Okudzhava about him [6]. Obviously, there is an article about him on ruwiki as well - ru:Заграевский, Сергей Вольфгангович. All these pages also exist on ruwiki and look sufficiently well-sourced to me, although something may need be fixed My very best wishes (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting to delete the article on Zagrayevsky (the guy invested a lot of time to create some press about him), just merely note that his private opinion on notability (expressed as the United Art Rating) is not exactly eqauivalent to our WP:GNG.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NB: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Art Rating--Ymblanter (talk) 15:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus may change. I am not sure this is just his private opinion, but even if it is, this can be quoted as an opinion of an expert. My very best wishes (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Artists Trade Union of Russia includes the artists from Russian Empire, USSR, artists from the former Soviet Union, and emigration, and is not HIS private organization. It is not based on volunteers and they have the normal salaries from the government. If each city has its own Artists Union, it is bigger, since it covers all Russia, and not only one city. And all art experts, museums, galleries are looking into it where category of the artist (#1..2..7) is defined. I'm not going to convince on it though, everyone has own opinion. Thanks.Toreeva (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I had some doubts, but after checking sources including several secondary RS about the person, I think she satisfies not only WP:Artist (see her suggestions to improve the page here that show her notability as an artist), but also our general notability guidelines. My very best wishes (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best for and also inviting DGG who works at these subject AFDs, because there's nothing clarifying these "art museums" and thus nothing to immediately pin exactness of information. Overall, there's simply nothing else convincing also including for the applicable notability so, with this, delete until someone can actually find better and subsequently improve. SwisterTwister talk 07:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I notice there is no article for her in the ruWP, so I have my doubts, because they are very inclusive for Russian artists and writers and academics. the real question is what permanent collections her work is in: if they are major museums, she's notable. Without actual evidence of this , a delete is inevitable. DGG ( talk ) 08:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, she satisfy WP:Artist #3 and general notability guidelines as someone who significantly contributed in creation of movies, a leading fashion designer (as reflected in a secondary source about her), an author and illustrator of books and an artist who had numerous exhibitons of her works. I think she also satisfies WP:Artist #4b ("the person's works have been a substantial part of a significant exhibition"). There is no requirement for an artist to have his/her work be present permanently in major museums. An artist can be notable as an illustrator (see List of illustrators, for example). And the argument about ruwiki is not valid. One could provide a very long list of pages about notable people, including Russians (and this artist is actually "Russia/US") that have pages about them here, but not on ruwiki.My very best wishes (talk) 14:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, you are who deleted my Draft, and you are who told me that I need just clean up the text, and question isn't in notability. I need to omit minor material, there will be sufficient without it. So I followed your advice, from 10 pages of Draft, now it 1 page. I have the list of museums, and I have the official documents about the art work in their collection, but you don't accept the emails. And why in the articles of another artists, they just have the list of the museums, where their work are, and those articles were accepted? Thanks.Toreeva (talk) 12:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't want to be part of ruWP, that's why I'm not there. And that's why many artists of 1970s-1980s were EMIGRATED. When I told my children I have a blue blood, they asked me to prove it. There is no prove, because after the revolution, all church records were destroyed, but it does not mean your heritage is destroyed. Many aristocrats after revolution went to France, and to survive worked as the taxi drivers. Did they lose their notability? MY answer is NO. The editors answer could be different. When we made a film about WWII with DEFA German film studio, I asked the policeman who stayed at the door in the church, since all churches were closed after the revolution, if I can see inside for our film. He looked around and said "Only 5 minutes". So it was my first visit to the church, and it was shaking for me, how beautiful was inside..You have to understand the system from the political, historical, and art point of view to judge the artists.. Even the collectors of unofficial art could lose their life, so there are no record about the collections. The less records you have, the better. After my emigration, my name was deleted in the film "Twenty Days Without War" (I did not check other my films since I did not have access to see them), but re-installed after the falling of Soviet Union. I'm happy that after the falling of Soviet Union in 1991, the interest on unofficial art of that time is growing on the West, and I feel it is my obligation to include info about the art/artists of that time. If your obligation is delete as many articles as possible, I understand it. My another question: to improve the article, can I include the info I just received from the West Chicago Museum. It was the competition for the Banner, and I used the collage that was selected among other artists. The collage and 2 my other collages were on the exhibition in May. This Banner is put on the Main street, and will be there till Sept for the public observation: http://westchicago.org/arts/art-banners-a-creative-focal-point-on-main-street/ Thanks. Toreeva (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to ask, if this input could also improve the article, specifically 2 articles in newspapers?

In 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986, 1987: Natalia G. Toreeva's drawings were included in the New York Russian language newspapers and journals:

 "Novy Svet" ("New World"): issues #91, #92, 1981; Satirical journal "Petooch" ("Rooster"): issue 4, 1983;

 "Novoe Russkoe Slovo", New Your, USA ("New Russian Word"):

1) The articles by L. Parkhomov "Creative work of Natalia Toreeva", June 12, 1985: Л. Пархомов. "Творчество Наташи Тореевой", "...Можно увести с собой талант и Россию в душе, этому я поверил, глядя на полотна Наташи...";

2) "The World of Natalia Toreeva", about her "Solo" exhibition in the Stuart Art Center Gallery in Chicago, Nov 20, 1986: Л. Пархомов. "На выставке художницы Наталии Тореевой", article "Мир Наталии Тореевой": "...Чувство искренней радости, соприкосновения с неожиданным и прекрасным долго ещё не оставляет зрителя, которому посчастливилось побывать на персональной выставке Наталии Тореевой в художесткенной галерее Стюарт-центра."

 "Almanac Panorama": issue 246,1986 (drawings); issue 318, 1987, New York, USA.

If someone has access to the archive database of these newspapers (I have the originals), you can read all the articles.

Below is my point that is not related to the article, and where I'm not trying to convince anyone. It is just input that could improve some knowledge in Russian history of art and literature. The director of the Washington Museum of Russian Poetry and Music, (who has my number of Posters), that is related specifically to 5 Russian poets of the Silver age (1920s): Marina Tsvetaeva, Anna Akhmatova, Osip Mandelstam, Nik. Gumilev, and Boris Pasternak. I personally met A.Akhmatova and Olga Berrgoltz, since our house, where I lived with my mother, was only couple of houses from the House of Writers. So my mom often took me there where the poets and writers read their pieces. I did not see B. Pasternak, since he lived in Moscow. Pasternak was submitted to the Nobel but was not permitted to go outside of USSR to receive the Award, only his son later was permitted to receive the award for his father. On the West, Boris Pasternak known only for his "Doctor Zhivago", specifically from the film, but we respected him as the poet. B. Pasternak and Anna Akhmatova survived only by doing the translations, and putting their poetry in the box for the better future. (Mandelstam died in Gulag, N. Gumilev also died, M. Tsvetaeva killed herself). So, I made the Posters for this museum, where these 5 poets are included. Then I got an email from this director asking me some interesting question. He asked me, as an ARTIST, to look into 8 drawings by Marina Tsvetaeva (4 drawings of men and 4 drawings of women), and he sent me them by email. These drawings are in the museum in Moscow, but they don't know if they belong to M. Tsvetaeva, and if so, who are on these drawings. He also asked another artists and art historians to gather their opinion on it too. So I started research on M. Tsvetaeva. I was shocked, when I learned that before her marriage, she was in the lesbian relation with another poet woman, so I started look on her poems and drawings not from what we learned in our schools point of view, but from this shocking news for me. So, I wrote several assays to this director, and he sent some of the points to that museum, but Russia is not ready (yet) to accept M. Tsvetaeva life style and her poetry from this point of view. And I'm sure, the schools still continue to teach students as it was before, and not mentioned at all her life style that could play the biggest part in her poetry. So, my point is that you can't find the records (or ruWP), and if you will find, it is not necessary 100% accurate, because it could depend on the specific time in the history. You need to follow your knowledge on any subject. Thanks.Toreeva (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not I who decide notability, but the community. On re-examining the article, I conclude that it very clearly does not meet the standards for NARTIST. The minor material is apparently all that there is. Either the community will agree with me, or it will not. Furthermore, in looking at the discussion on this page, I conclude that you are too involved with the subject to make it likely that you would succeed in writing an objective article, even if the artist did meet the criteria. DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I did not get it, that's why I asked someone to help with improvement the article. Can someone to include into the article 2 articles from the New Your newspapers and the current info from the West Chicago museum about the Banner exhibition? Or it does not matter, bec. you have already your opinion? Thanks.Toreeva (talk) 21:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks that the article is ready for your review. Please review it with the good faith. (Thank you! Спасибо! Danke!) Thanks everyone for your help! Toreeva (talk) 04:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No input on the updated article review? Can someone bring the independent editors and not those who were already participated in deletion of the Draft article? Otherwise, the article's judgement will have the obvious bias result, which could base on the "Talk" discussion about autobiography (which is not) and not on the article content itself. Thanks.Toreeva (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bing Maniquiz

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

Non-notable politician: Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. All I can find are the election results and some trivial coverage. — JJMC89 (T·C) 09:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 09:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 09:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, fails WP:NPOL AusLondonder (talk) 10:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ridiculous puff piece, fails WP:NPOL and general notability guide. Theroadislong (talk) 10:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. KGirlTrucker87^{talk what I'm been doing} 11:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being mayor of a small provincial town is well below the threshold of notability for politicians, the article is also just a vanity article for her and her entire family, even including a bunch of family photos and a long list of utterly non-notable family members. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not Facebook! Thomas.W ^talk 12:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At a population of 50K according to its article, Botolan is just barely large enough that a properly written and well-sourced article about a mayor could be kept under WP:NPOL #3 — but it is not large enough to confer an automatic presumption of notability on its mayors just because they exist. But the only sources here are raw tables of election results, with not even one RS present to support so much as a comma of the article's body text — and that's just not enough. Note that I've also already stripped the extensive list of every living relative she has, as WP:BLPNAME explicitly prohibits us from violating people's personal privacy rights by naming their non-notable relatives without proper sourcing for the information. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article is now no longer fully protected I have removed the totally unsourced "Facebook-material" about her family and her education, and all of the family photos, i.e. basically all of the material that now blocked user Workerwiki, the creator of the article, has been edit-warring over lately to keep in the article... Thomas.W ^talk 15:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Pretty much a WP:LINKEDIN piece, No evidence of notability, –Davey2010^Talk 15:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 54,000 is not enough to make the mayor of a place default notable. I wish we would consistently apply these standards, there are some cities in the US of this size that have had the articles on their mayors kept at AfD. Hopefully if this results in delete, we can revist some articles on mayors of places in New Jersey and Louisiana that ought to be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as there's a clear consensus and there's particularly nothing for solid independent notability as an article. SwisterTwister talk 07:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SNOW Keep as a week has shown to suggest this can be kept as its own article and there are no outstandingly large delete votes, aside from an apparent IP's Delete, aside from the newest one but even then, the other votes noticeably suggest Keep outweigh the one Delete; the only other comment was from a now-kicked user (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 07:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Racism in South Korea

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

I think this article is only original research. The article cites news reports or blog articles and tries to list them to prove racism in Korea. However, single cases like this happen in every country. A topic like this actually needs mainly journal papers as source with empirical research. Moreover, the article focuses very strongly on cases of individuals: " Hwang Min-woo, a South Korean dancer, was bullied by his fellow students at his school due to his having a Vietnamese mother." This sentence is there just without any context. However, if the article would list all those individual cases, every racism article on wikipedia would be bigger then the remaining wikipedia. And, as I said before, the full article is original research instead of showing the the current state of racism in Korea from a neutral point of view by citing empirical literature. --Christian140 (talk) 09:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 10:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic is encyclopedic, there are academic refs (Ryuko Kubota; Angel M.Y. Lin (2 June 2009). Race, Culture, and Identities in Second Language Education: Exploring Critically Engaged Practice. Routledge. pp. 56–. ISBN 978-1-135-84569-8.). The article may have some problems, but by no means it is anywhere near WP:TNTable. The nominator would be advised instead to add copyediting tags such as {{dubious}} or {{cite}} and discusses particular problematic passages at talk. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: Seems a bit too far-fetched to call the whole article original research. It could be better, but I have seen worse. Ceosad (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Parts of the article can be improved, but overall the article is not that bad. The topic is notable in any case. The problem seems to me that most of the references are newspaper reports (where journals would be preferred). That can be improved though. WP:TNT is not required here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic is encyclopedic, and problems can be addressed without deleting the whole article. Random86 (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
However, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper and what the article does is just listing news reports of cases and claims of racism in Korea. --Christian140 (talk) 10:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This is a very notable topic. All the present issues can be brought up on the talk page or otherwise amended. Dustin (talk) 03:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move - Move to Ethnic issues in South Korea like all other countries like China, Japan, Taiwan etc. Racism simply isn't a major issue in South Korea because non-Koreans comprise less than 2% of the population. Inevitably, much of it is going to be news reports about petty racist behavior from individuals and that provides a misleading idea about the situation there. Also, all tabloid newspaper articles needs to be removed for this reason. Cleftetus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC) (note: Cleftetus is an indef blocked sock puppet, the master account has a history of nationalistic, pro-Korean edits)[reply]

Sounds good. There is also the article Korean ethnic nationalism which recently had the same main author as Racism in South Korea. --Christian140 (talk) 09:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Article name is now in line with Ethnic issues in China and Ethnic issues in Japan, countries that are also virtually ethnically homogeneous like South Korea. This should help the article focus on the real historically significant issues and not on reporting tabloid newspaper articles about every individual's petty racist behaviors, which is not what Wikipedia is about - WP:Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Cleftetus (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An admin still needs to move the page. "Issues" should not be capitalized. Random86 (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Racism isn't a major issue because non-Koreans comprise less than 2% of the population" – what a revealing sentence… --PanchoS (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Piotrus and Lemongirl942. Yes, it could be made much better by adding more academic material, but there's no reason to start from the beginning - we're certainly not in TNT area here. There are some concerning POV issues and dubious parts (example #1, example #2, example #3), and I would be happy to help with copyediting and other improvements. GAB^gab 15:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has a long history of vandalism by sockpuppets attempting to whitewash the entire situation. Cleftetus has been indef blocked for being one of those socks. I have moved the article back to it's original location. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralizationsAreBad:, @Random86: User Spacecowboy420 just reverted Cleftetus' edits since he was blocked for being a sockpuppet. Nevertheless, his "set back" to the time before the edits was improving the article. Please look into this situation again. Questionable edit. He even removed teh link to this discussion. --Christian140 (talk) 10:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is related to if the article should be deleted or not. If you wish to improve the article, I suggest that you go to the talk page, and make yourself aware of the current state of consensus regarding the article. Oh. You're also subject to a sock puppet report, Christian. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I already saw that and commented on that and I already mentioned before what is wrong with the article on the talk page. Morever, User GAB for example approved on the changed article, which is clearly better. And most users here said the article has problems. The edits by Cleftetus and GAB were improving the article a lot. --Christian140 (talk) 10:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly better? Nice to see that you are the final word on what does and does not make an improvement. Who needs consensus, when all we have to do is wait for you to say "it's clearly better"?

It's also nice to see you value the edits of a indef blocked, nationalistic sockpuppet, more than editors who actually try to gain consensus. Good Job, Christian! Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did nothing than wait here for a consensus. You just removed the link to this discussion here, which is clearly vandalism. You just decided on your behalf that the old version is better instead of discussing it here further. Insteas of removing everything, you could have disagreed here with the changes or at least on the discussion page of the article. --Christian140 (talk) 10:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christian, let's be specific. Which parts of the indef blocked, nationalist sockpuppet, Ceeftetus' edits did you consider to improve the article a lot? Was it that foreigners all come to Korea, because they are poor and Korea is rich? Was it the content discussing that Koreans all speak English very well, but foreigners can't learn Korean? Was it the content that talked about " People who are poor, uneducated, lazy, smell or have a poor sense of fashion" in regards to foreigners? Or was it the content that talked about lots of foreigners having AIDS/HIV? Which one of those was responsible for "improving the article a lot" ? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To my shame, I have to say that you have a point here. Unfortunately, I looked over the "edited" version only very briefly and it looked already better by just reading the "headlines" and I thought no edit could make it worse. Since user Cleftetus left a comment on my user page, that he reverted the article to the time before the mess started, I believed it in good faith. Yes, here I did something I should not do. I claimed it to be better even without having a closer look into it. I agree. The other version has as many issues as this version and pointing out that the Korean alphabet is easy to learn and takes only one hour is everything but neutral. Besides all the other irrelevant or non neutral statements in the article. Therefore, because feeling so ashamed, I will leave this discussion completely. --Christian140 (talk) 11:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been restored to the pre-sock state, and Christian140 apologized for the mistake. I hope that we've resolved this. GAB^gab 12:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, Christian - I reverted to an edit previous to the edits of a confirmed sockpuppet, as per wikipedia guidelines. The link to this discussion being removed was an unfortunate side effect, but no big deal. There was already consensus on that article. Editors worked hard for consensus, while having to deal with numerous sock puppets such as cleftetus. The consensus on this discussion is to KEEP the article. The content has already won consensus. The move never had consensus, and was reverted because it was performed by a sockpuppet. (as well as lacking consensus) Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cleftetus' edit to Korean ethnic nationalism should be rolled back as well. Random86 (talk) 11:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems all good now. I think whatever problems need to be fixed, can be fixed on the article talk page. (and on SPI when the socks return) Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly a relevant, encyclopedic topic. Quite a bit one-sided now, but remaining problems have to be solved by reasonable editing, introduction of additional WP:RS and discussion of controversial aspects on the talk page. However, the introductory sentence is clearly too loud, given it is not sufficiently backed by WP:RS.
Please see also my current move request at Talk:Ethnic issues in China#Requested move 4 June 2016. --PanchoS (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Korea is unfairly singled out for anti-racism propaganda. Racism exists everywhere but at least there have been no race riots in Korea. The tone of the article is not neutral. Wikipedia is not a social activism and awareness site. It is supposed to be a factual presentation of a topic. Individual stories and articles cannot be used to depict an entire people. Delete or else severely change content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.112.24 (talk) 16:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 16:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DigitGaps

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

Non-notable company, supported by references from a single source which look as though they're as likely as not paid promotionl material - e.g. [7] --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC) Tagishsimon (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Any genuine "global firm operating across 60 countries and 23 industries" is going to have at least one Google hit other than their own Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn pages and more than zero news hits, neither of which appears to be the case here. The sole "source" is a press release. I note also that their own website (as linked in the article) is a dead link. ‑ Iridescent 09:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appears to fail WP:GNG. —MRD2014 (formerly Qpalzmmzlapq) T C 17:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only source given is pretty flighty; claims made on their social media sites are equally as shaky. The US address is a vanity "virtual office"; I can't find any hint of an actual headquarters. Nor can I confirm their purported membership with the AMA or ESOMAR in directories. Their primary website is down? That seems odd. Kuru (talk) 18:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete One awful source isn't enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and burn with fire. Utterly non-notable. Shritwod (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as quite obviously nothing at all for any actual applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 12:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

السيد فاضل جمال الدين

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

Biographical article in Arabic which has been listed at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English for 20 days. A Google translation doesn't help clarify whether the subject is notable. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I opposed the original PROD as the reasoning was not sound. I thought the second PROD was acceptable as an WP:IAR exception to the general about only being able to PROD an article once. In any event, the article should be deleted as the author has had ample time to translate but has given no indication of an intent to do so. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Athomeinkobe. - HyperGaruda (talk) 08:01, 30 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 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not english at all. KGirlTrucker87^{talk what I'm been doing} 11:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not suitable for English Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
SNOW Delete as clearly nothing comprehensibly better and I would've pursued the PROD instead. SwisterTwister talk 07:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Stagecoach_North_East#Stagecoach_in_Darlington. Closing as Redirect as this is an easy redirect, if anyone wants to merge anything I have no objections. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stagecoach Darlington

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

Unsourced article about a former non-notable local bus service Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:54, 30 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 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. However, if the article creator comes to participate in this discussion and wants to improve this article, then userfy. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Where is Darlington? Postcard Cathy (talk) 09:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is one of those puzzles like Where's Wally?, I have to report that it is too easy. Uncle G (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to opine that surely this is better covered in an article about the bus services in Darlington, and their histories. Then I discovered, almost immediately that I started searching to see whether anyone had properly documented such a history, that we already had the article. It's Darlington Bus War, where this is covered as part of the aftermath. Article merger seems indicated. Uncle G (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per Uncle G, merge if there is anything sourceable here not in the Darlington Bus War article, redirect if there isn't. Thryduulf (talk) 16:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I have found nothing better at all, there's also then nothing at all to suggest the needed notability improvements. This fits also with the expected articles that have happened before which were only local and not obtained any other better coverage. SwisterTwister talk 22:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stagecoach North East. Peter James (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Owen

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

My searches have simply found nothing better than this] and this,and that's basically the best I've found since others I've found are by far unacceptable. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:13, 30 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 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Probably delete – From source searches, the subject appears to fall short of meeting WP:BASIC at this time. I found this cover story in Vanish magazine, but cannot access the content, and this book source provides a paragraph about the subject. Highbeam search results appear to only provide passing mentions (e.g. [8]). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of Notability Samat lib (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete run of the mill magician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only passing mentions. Tom29739 ^[talk] 18:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Gambier Marketplace

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

My searches have simply found nothing better at all aside from expected news at News and that's not surprising considering this is only a local shopping area founded within the last 4 years, nothing at all convincing of any independent notability. It's not surprising this was started the month this place opened and that it's been quiet since, symmetrical to my searches also, I would've PROD this too and, also at best, sought deletion sooner. SwisterTwister talk 07:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and content is mostly only a list of stores that exist currently, which also fails WP:NOTDIR (Ajf773 (talk) 08:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. Nothing notable here. By the way, don't be fooled by the two seemingly different references in the article -- they're both to the same web article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Sulekha. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 01:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Satya Prabhakar

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

Searches found several links, which is expected, at News, browsers and WP:INDAFD, but none of it is actually convincing of his own notable article thus I suggest this is could, if needed, redirected to the company after it's deleted; however I also note that's only if needed at best since that may put this vulnerable to restarting. I should also note it may also not be best to leave this open to restarting because this has basically stayed the same and virtually unchanged with no improvements since starting in September 2009 so there's nothing convincing to suggest why we should keep traces of the article with a redirect link. SwisterTwister talk 07:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He's the founder of the company so a redirect at least seems appropriate. Why would it need to be deleted before it could be redirected to the company? Why couldn't this have been merged/redirected rather than bringing it to AfD? --Michig (talk) 07:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect: You don't need to delete this article, just merge it with the company and redirect. Delete the redirect, and yes, someone will just restart the article. Redirects are good to have for that reason. Montanabw ^(talk) 20:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, per Wikipedia's standard practise. Unnecessary AfD. Cavarrone 20:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Patrick Kessler

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

Several things about this, there's nothing for any applicable notability and my searches have found nothing better at all, the fact no one has cared to improve or also add contents to this since the nearly 10 years of existence also shows how it seems perhaps no one notices this article....With this, with there being nothing for any applicable notability, this certainly suggests at deletion material. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced bio. I've not been able to find any independent, reliable sources. Mduvekot (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we cannot keep an article that has as its only source the subjects website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:49, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prafful Sarda

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

no visible notability , except for the usual Indian press PR material. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's not a single piece close to any applicable Wikipedia notability, nothing at all convincing and this, as always, is a particularly examine-needed subject as these are often puffed and inflating to seem acceptable....when they're not. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per relatively low participation herein. Regarding the keep !vote, of note is that criteria at WP:ENT does not guarantee presumed notability. Atop the section of the guideline page, it states that people "are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Munik Nunes

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

It is a poorly translated biography of somebody that became famous solely for participating of a TV show. There is no other sourced event that could justify any claim of relevance. Perhaps the article could be redirected to the specific season she participated. —Teles «Talk to me˱_{M @ C S}˲» 17:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable, despite the pageant, for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep She would seem to meet the notability threshold of having "a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following" with her 2.2 million followers on Instagram. giso6150 (talk) 12:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus Conclusion

There was use of arguments. However, the use of these arguments do not have assessed in light uncontested consensus for the article. So I close the discussion. Amamos Anitta ^Discussion 18h49m, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment - Note that I nearly covered this or altogether removed because it's the actual article author therefore they cannot actually "close" and it's also not a vote.... SwisterTwister talk 05:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As for the "Keep" vote, it could be keepable because of that but that's only expected coverage and there's still nothing to noticeably solve the current independent questionability. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Bars

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

My searches at Books, News, Highbeam, browsers and the Irish newspapers Irish Times and The Independent found nothing better than this and there's simpy nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - next to no reliable sources, so fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Tom29739 ^[talk] 21:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jules Hamilton

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

Challenged PROD -- notability uncertain. Many of the sources seem unreliable. DGG ( talk ) 03:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as by far another classic example of both the information and sources simply not actually giving any hints at satisfying the applicable notability, there's nothing convincing here at all. Notifying taggers Logical Fuzz, Melcous and Wikipedical. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to be a case of self-promotion, possibly WP:TOOSOON, but sources currently provided do not appear to show he meets notability criteria Melcous (talk) 08:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brotherly Love (2015 Web Series)

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

Non-notable webseries on non-notable YouTube "channel". Orange Mike | Talk 02:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There doesn't seem to be anything out there except the IMDb, social media, and Wikipedia mirrors. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:PROMO, no valid sources on page and my google search of "Brotherly Love" + Senthil + Keating produced none.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TechRax

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

Only sources are YouTube, and YouTube is not a reliable source. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This isn't really the sort of thing that I think belongs on Wikipedia, but it's got coverage: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. Much of the coverage is pretty weak, but there's enough commentary spread through the articles that it could fill up a stub or start-class article. If this is kept, I'll see about rewriting the article and doing what I can make it encyclopedic. No promises, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep I was pretty skeptical. Nevertheless I looked at the string of sources User:NinjaRobotPirate posted. article #1 didn't blow me away, so I checked the ones end of the queue. and was persuaded by this Gizmodo article [16] and this Fortune Magazine article [17].E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this seems at best perhaps enough for minimal notability. If still questionable later, we can talk about it again. SwisterTwister talk 07:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colette Wong

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

Although this is tagged with a "new user" tag, my searches have basically found nothing better at all including for the applicable notability and thus there's nothing else to suggest this can actually be better. Notifying recent tagger Onel5969. SwisterTwister talk 07:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't see how this person passes WP:GNG. Searches did not turn up much, in fact, they turned up more about a fashion designer with this same name. News had an interview, a pr, and several trivial mentions. Newspapers had zip, as did Scholar, Books, Highbeam and JStor. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but there wasn't a single in-depth secondary source article about her. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability established by two cited sources: [18] and [19]. I beleive the second was recently added by Malcolmxl5 - Thanks! ~Kvng (talk) 21:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes notability due to the 2 profiles linked in previous comment.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 01:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Sobotka

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

Nothing at all for any actual applicable notability and although my searches have found expected mentions, there's nothing else for this university assistant coach and high school coach. I would've nearly PROded this too. SwisterTwister talk 07:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Rikster2 (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per new sources added to the article by User:Malcolmxl5. Also worth noting that Sobotka is not just a college assistant coach, he was also head coach of Portland State for four years. Head men's basketball coaches for division I college programs are generally considered notable. Rikster2 (talk) 02:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a WP:GNG pass, per Rikster2. An NCAA Division I head coach is definitely notable. Ejgreen77 (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Basir Seerat

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

My searches have found nothing better regarding coverage sources to suggest this can be improved and the current article has nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Tom29739 ^[talk] 17:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gita Swaminathan

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

I would've considered PROD too, nothing here suggests better for any applicable notability and my searches have found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 07:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: judging by her Facebook page, it seems even her name is spelled incorrectly in the article. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. And the photo used in the article is the copyrighted publicity shot used in the one reference cited, so that needs to be removed from Wikipedia as well. Richard3120 (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Musician not notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tessie Harron

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

This actress had one uncredited role[20] before dying in the 1918 flu epidemic. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom, not notable for a single film appearance and her death in the flu epidemic does not confer notability Neiltonks (talk) 11:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – fails WP:NACTOR. Article is completely unsourced, as is unlikely to ever be. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass notability guidelines for actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as by far nothing at all for any actual convincing independent notability. SwisterTwister talk

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

European Forum for Geography and Statistics

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

Non-notable organization. Notability and prod tags removed by creator. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Howler (magazine)

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

Fails WP:GNG. I also found http://www.printmag.com/featured/howler-magazine/ and http://www.coolhunting.com/culture/interview-george-quraishi-of-howler-magazine which, along with the TopDrawerSoccer.com reference might push it over the top, but I don't know if that's the case. I would argue that if survives, it would need a rewrite. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, may be notable someday, but not at this time. Kierzek (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG no indication of any third party coverage of the magazine. Fenix down (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simply nothing else for the applicable notability and it's only newly started so it's not like there's going to be years and years of the needed coverage too. Nothing at all convincing. SwisterTwister talk 08:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bindlechner

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

My searches found nothing better than this and this, but I found nothing else better; the overall article is still questionable with the German Wiki listing nothing else better. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet notability guidelines. Kierzek (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:47, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:47, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is a close call, but the strongest arguments that talk about notability show that there are not enough sources that are completely independent of the organisation. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jesuit Foundation – Prison Ministry

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

Non-notable organization. References are either self-published, published by Jesuit sources related to article subject, or extremely minor mentions. This kind of non-notable but important material should be hosted off-wiki by the organization. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ While I do not doubt that this program exists, or that it does good work, I cannot find reliable , secondary sources (such as non-Jesuit newspaper articles) describing it in ways that show that it is notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC) Withdrawing my opposition now that sources have been brought to this page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've found no independent significant coverage. Fund raising appeals published by associated organizations read like press releases from Jesuit Foundation - Prison Ministry. Gab4gab (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To disqualify all organizations that raise funds for an NGO seems unfair to me. These are independent organizations which chose this work as worth reporting on (in Asian-wide Catholics News service) or for investment of funds. Also, please credit the reference by the Thai embassy.Jzsj (talk) 09:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To help us base our decisions on Wikipedia policy and guidance I'll point to some guidance in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) that lists what does not support notability. The exception list includes the following and more:

press releases, press kits, or similar works;
self-published materials;
any material written by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it;
advertising and marketing materials by, about, or on behalf of the organization;
corporate websites or other websites written, published, or controlled by the organization;
any material written or published by the organization, directly or indirectly;
other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people.

The sources I've found with a depth of coverage beyond trivial fit one or more of the exceptions I've listed. The UCAN article in particular is almost entirely what the organization is saying about itself. Either by quoting a member or repeating items from the organizations report. Also, while the article is published by UCAN the stated source is SJAPC, a Jesuit organization. Gab4gab (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article subject has received significant coverage at numerous reliable sources WP:RS and therefore passes WP:GNG. Some of the sources cited include, here [21], here [22], and here [23]. The subject has certainly passed the threshold of notability WP:N so the article should be retained at wikipedia. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 01:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The references you selected make a good case for non-notability. #1 is make a trivial mention of the organization being one of three that provide support at a immigration detention center. #2 is a fund raising appeal/press kit material produced by the organization. #3 is the UCAN article I discussed above. Articles that reprint material produced by the organization or simply make trivial mention do very little to pass a threshold of notability. Gab4gab (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant, the sources you provide are all inappropriate in that they are weak or self-published. #2 and #3 are published by related religious organizations, and #1 says literally only "Jesuit Prison Ministry" in a longer list of organizations, which makes it a classic minor mention. Gab4gab's excellent list explaining sources above is informative here. I am all for keeping articles when the sourcing is diverse, separate from the institution and detailed. However this is not the case here. 01:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We certainly do not agree on the excellent sources in the article. I stand by my statement and quoting of the sources, and the fact that the article shows notability and passes WP:GNG. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 01:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant< I would usuggest again that you read WP:RS more carefully, as the sources you gave above are all plainly inappropiate or weak. I'm just repeating myself at this point, but I do hope you read the policy on reliable sources as I think it would help.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 01:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Again we do not agree. Just because you may see something differently from another person does not mean the other person is wrong. I can say the same thing to you. You need to study WP:RS, because that may help you to understand the policies better. Working collaboratively with other editors means to listen to the viewpoints of other editors, and take their words under consideration. Saying that the other person is wrong every time because you simply disagree with their viewpoint is a poor argument that many administrators will see right through when evaluating AFD discussions. Good day! Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 01:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is simply a fact that the references you provided above are weak because of the reasons stated. Anyone can see this by reading the policy. It would be great if you read the policy, that is all I am suggesting. It believe it would improve the quality of the references you propose, for example, the ones above, if you understood better what a good reference is. It's nothing personal. I'll leave you now as it is tiring to repeat this over and over.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It shows important work affecting prisoners from several countries, and several independent references are given.Jzsj (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The importance of the work being done hasn't been questioned. The issue is notability. What's missing is in independent in depth coverage that doesn't use what the organization itself has written as it's source. Gab4gab (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - What this case may prove is that the newspapers in Thailand don't survive by reporting on the underside of their society. We have such papers in the North but it cannot be assumed of the South. When the Jesuit Mission UK writes about a mission, one can assume that it checked the accuracy of the report before adopting that mission. When the organization's annual report contains a gallery of photos showing the work it is doing, then unless we have some reason to think they are deceiving us, we can take these photos as objective evidence of their work. Also, when Catholic News Asia shows a picture of this ministry visiting families in Laos, we have a strong secondary source. When the Australian Council of Churches reports on the state-run Flinders University adopting Jesuit Foundation Thailand prison ministry, it lends notability to this organization's work. Also, Bangkok Post is an independent source that confirms JFPM Thailand's involvement in the specific works it claims to be doing. And the Thai government mentions JFPM first among organizations involved in the "victim identification process" and in its progress report. Unless we have reason to question the veracity of an organization, I see no problem with giving credence to very credible stories on its website, backed up by second and third party references showing that is exists and is about what it says it is about.Jzsj (talk) 16:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have reworked the article and references and added new references. I suggest that this is a notable social work in Thailand, and notable also for its efforts with prisoners' families outside Thailand's borders, with pictures and very credible reports to establish this.Jzsj (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this user has already !voted, above. Jclemens (talk) 01:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourcing is adequate to meet GNG. Jclemens (talk) 01:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Since I'm currently uncertain, I'm asking DGG for his subject analysis. SwisterTwister talk 08:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looking at the references, Refs 1, 5, and 11 are the organization's own pages; Refs 2, 6, 7, 8, and 10 are from the web pages of the parent organization or affiliated organizations ; Refs 3 , 4 , and 9 are just mentions. Thisis apparently an article about a very small (7 person) organization that is doing important and highly meritorious work, and perhaps ought to be notable, but does not yet have the source coverage to show it. DGG ( talk ) 19:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I'm convinced by DGG's analysis, there's nothing at all for any solid independent notability and nothing minimally convincing at all. SwisterTwister talk 22:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. How much coverage of the underside of society, work among prisoners, do we get in the North? This work in Thailand and the surrounding countries has sufficient coverage to show it is a primary source of prisoner protection and assistance in the area.Jzsj (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Major League Soccer lore

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

Major League Soccer and History of Major League Soccer already exists. Page seems redundant. Plus, first line implies it's a blog-esque post. Crusty4545 (talk) 03:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and expand History of Major League Soccer is just an outline of the league in general, less about specific games. Quidster4040 (talk) 03:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Albeit true, seems more appropriate to elaborte on respective crtical games on History of Major League Soccer. Crusty4545 (talk) 07:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable topic and a magnet for original research. There is no evidence that reliable sources discuss the "lore" of MLS as a discrete topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:47, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, any relevant information should be included in articles about individual teams or the league.Arials101 (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are already historical MLS articles. This is redundant. KitHutch (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It would be better suited as a category of MLS matches. Sounder Bruce 22:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - inherently unencyclopedic. No clear inclusion criteria and smacks very much of cruft and trivia. Fenix down (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as already stated, this article is redundant. Spiderone 12:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's still nothing actually convincing how this can be independently notable for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 08:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Why is this even notable and how did this AfD discussion take so long?07:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

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) 13:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

St. Thomas Orthodox Church, Nellippoyil

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

This article is about a small individual church of the Malabar Diocese of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. This individual church does not have any web presence, all links both in the article and that I found searching were for the parent Malankara Church, and this church has no notability as a separate entity from it. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 05:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 05:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 05:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps if there's nothing suggesting solidity for its own article. Notifying DGG for subject analysis. SwisterTwister talk 08:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have never considered individual churches notable as a matter of course DGG ( talk ) 22:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim of notability. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian High Commissioners to Tanzania

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

fails WP:GNG. The sources merely confirm the mostly non notable that held ambassador positions noting that Australia has not had a resident ambassador for some time. Australia-Tanzania relations might have been an appropriate redirect but that article doesn't exist. Let's see if the usual suspect turns up with a WP:MUSTBESOURCES lazy argument. LibStar (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Australia-Tanzania relations, on conditoin that someone (perhaps creator User:Clare) is willing to create that article. Otherwise delete as list of incumbents of a not inherently notable post.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 03:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Insert CleverPhrase Here 00:45, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PERNOM. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Another in the apparently endless series of non-notable diplomacy related articles. The coverage is the usual routine official press-releases and associated fluff, and high commissioners are not inherently notable. Reyk _YO! 07:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per the AFD discussion on the Australian Ambassadors to Kazakhstan page, any info that isn't already mentioned on the List of Australian High Commissioners to Kenya page could easily be placed there, which will strengthen that page and not lose anything worth saying about this subject, of which there appears to be little.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 05:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would also consider nominating List of Australian High Commissioners to Zambia for deletion and merge on this same basis.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 05:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been done.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 06:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Siegfried Nugent: If the article is deleted first, there's a very low probability of any content ever being merged. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged it. Now amended my vote to Delete.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miroslav Jakšić

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

Fails all levels of notability. Still in college after signing with a college that just recently moved up to division 1, then transferring to a junior college. Closest he comes to an athlete exception to GNG was being an honorable mention on McDonald's high school all Americans which is not enough. No coverage beyond what would be expected for a good high school athlete in a major metropolitan area. Not for nothing, this article reeks of being the work of a PR agent. John from Idegon (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 04:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 04:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 04:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nom. Insert CleverPhrase Here 00:44, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PERNOM. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBASKETBALL. As an aside, it feels silly that someone can't say "per nom" if the nominatior does a good job laying out the reasons for AfD. In an extreme case a perfectly-written, obvious AfD case would never be resolved because no one would reply and admins would assume there were no opinions on the case. Rikster2 (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This guy is bottom of the barrel. He was recruited by Eastern Michigan University, which has a program I can rip on because I attended there. Its athletics are abysmal. Supposedly he had a offer from Duke, but he went to Grand Canyon, which says he was not really all that good of a player. Even at Grand Canyon he played only 6 minutes in a game. So he then goes to Paris Junior College, which most people in Texas probably have not heard of. He may turn his career around at some point and be notable, but he is no where near being such now. He is probably in the bottom fifth of current college basketball players, and that may well be over rating him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still nothing at all actually convincing solidifying his own independently notable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adil Kachayoghlu

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

No clear evidence of notability DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I noticed this earlier, no actual applicable notability thus there's nothing to actually expect anything acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 19:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Attempted to search for sources. Could not trace even one to support notability. Xender Lourdes (talk) 03:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 12:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Organic data entry

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

No indication of significance; creator has not addressed tagged issues. —swpb^T 19:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
I wrote this on the article talk page, but repeat it here.
I am new to this process. Today, I have described Organic data entry more in depth. The method has parallels to organic data search, which I have pointed out in the article.
The methodology exists and is in daily use. It is not all new, but in an early stage of usage. One reference in the article is to a patent applications, which proves the methodology existanse.
A key here is that one can use ODE to enter complex data strings from the most simple input devices as SMS/messaging systems. This has caught interest by scientists, and I would expect more references soon from these.
Thanks, —norchris^T 22:15, 23 May 2016 (GMT+1)
- This isn't about the merits of the subject. People are asking a very simple and straightforward question with these tags and notices: Where, outwith Wikipedia, have people, not the subject's inventors, documented it in depth? Where is the knowledge already written down and published by identifiable people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy? Books. Papers. Articles. And so forth. Please point to them. Everything must be verifiable. Wikipedia is not in the business of documenting the heretofore undocumented. Uncle G (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Norchris: Thanks for working to improve Wikipedia. Just a quick note of clarification. Part of the way Wikipedia is able to function as a collaborative encyclopedia is that we have strict rules about covering only what has been covered already by reliable sources. If books, magazines, high-quality websites, etc. haven't written about it in some depth, it's not fit for Wikipedia yet. The existence of things or a contributor saying it's important just isn't sufficient. If you want to learn more about these policies, which can be a hassle at first but are quite important, see WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:N. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't look to be significant coverage in reliable sources yet. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, if norchris feels there are sufficient sources out there but does not yet have them, I wouldn't be opposed to Userfying. (Norchris, that would mean the content would still be on Wikipedia, but as a subpage of your userpage rather than a normal article). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I find no reliable secondary sources at all so agree with nom. DeVerm (talk) 13:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article makes nothing for the needed solid independent notability and there's absolutely nothing minimally convincing. SwisterTwister talk 08:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam national under-20 futsal team

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

Non notable youth sports team that has not participated in any event. Qed237 (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 00:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass notability criteria outlined in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). nor GNG. Insert CleverPhrase Here 00:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all actually suggesting the needed solid independent notability, nothing at all convincing. SwisterTwister talk 08:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage found. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 16:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Hall

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

Quite detailed....but noticeably promotional and the sources are not at all convincing, my own searches, at worst, found nothing better at all, there's nothing here for any applicable notability and I wish I could've simply PRODed. SwisterTwister talk 22:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems to be mostly puffery, all the sources are very marginal for notability. 10 marginal sources do not equal one good one. Insert CleverPhrase Here 23:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chatfield High School

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

This is a high school with absolutely no notability evidenced in the article. This article should be deleted per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Parsley Man (talk) 02:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Keep - The very policy you cited, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, and numerous other similar pages, have all made it clear that we consider all secondary schools, such as High Schools, to be inherently notable. It is primary schools (elementary schools) that must be especially notable. For High Schools, proven existence is sufficient. In fact, for High Schools, the very page you just linked to says that confirmed FUTURE High Schools that haven't even finished construction yet are sufficiently notable. Fieari (talk) 06:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Looks like I misread WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Whoops, my bad. I would like to retract my deletion request. Parsley Man (talk) 07:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Grant Hay

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

Article about a non-notable person. He is a co-founder of non-notable organizations and a producer of non-notable web films. He is also described as an expert legal advisor, but the claim is unsourced and the article does not describe any legal education. There is lots of name dropping about his relatives and alleged legal clients, but WP:NOTINHERITED. MelanieN (talk) 02:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: The article was speedy-deleted per A7, but was restored at the request of the author, who promised to add sources demonstrating notability. I was not involved in the speedy deletion but was asked by the deleting/restoring administrator to take a look at the case. The sources the author intended to add, and my evaluation of them, are listed here. ~~In the 10 days since the article was restored, the author has not actually made any changes to it;~~ (Update: the author, AlphaProxy, has now added several additional sources.) In my opinion the proposed new sources would not have made the subject notable in any case. I also raised a question at the author's talk page about a possible conflict of interest, which they have not responded to. --MelanieN (talk) 02:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article includes material about the subject's schooling and career, none of which are unusual or significant. The subject fails our notability guidelines, which state that the subject must have received in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. — Diannaa (talk) 04:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article in favor of the author's contest of speedy-deletion with the editor(s) here, who agreed to restore the article at the request of the author who has added the editor's recommended Reliable Sources to the article in accordance with our notability guidelines to improve the article. - AlphaProxy (talk) 11:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of these sourced and the accompanying information suggest any actual context for the notability at all. SwisterTwister talk 21:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the name dropping would be great to provide full detail to a biography of an independently notable person. But in this case it seems to be used to prove notability. The information that could be used to support an actual claim of notability are:

Grant Hay is an expert in Australian property law, land subdivison, local government and government compulsory acquisitions in Australia. He has more than ten years experience instructing and briefing senior legal counsel in Victoria
He is ... acting Chair of The New Republicans and 'Renew Australia' Charter
He is the founder and President of the Connected TV Marketing Association
He is ... the founding board member of Studio Australia

The claims relating to instructing barristers is particularly interesting to me, because I see no evidence of a law degree or licence to practice law. For the remainder of the claims, I do not see how any of them make him notable enough for a biography. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Redirect: The article to his grandfather Peter Grant Hay an independently notable person related to the subject and await in-depth coverage from a variety of reliable sources from contributors to support a new article on the subject; the authority of his legal claim, his political role and career activities in broadcasting and production, which appear to be new and, if and when they become notable include them in a full biography. - AlphaProxy (talk) 09:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AlphaProxy: Right now you have two bolded !votes on this page: the "keep" above and the "redirect" here. But you are only allowed to !vote once. Could you please strike out one or the other so that the closing administrator knows what you are recommending? (I'm guessing you meant to strike out the other "keep" as well but I would rather not put words in your mouth.) Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 14:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Apologies to all for being off-wiki for some time.) I've just done another search through Google for "James Grant Hay". I was presented with six and a half pages, but also went on into the other ten pages of 'similar' entries that Google offered. Sorry, but I can see nothing in those entries to support an article. Notability is usually not inherited - however, in a case like Prince George, his ancestry and position in the line of succession ensured that without doing much more than smile, burp and wet nappies he got an article. For the rest of us without inherited titles or the burden of being the children of the POTUS, the notability of relations would only be of encyclopaedic note were we to pass notability ourselves. Peridon (talk) 10:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 12:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ProcessOn

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

This article has no references and so makes no claim of notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google didn't reveal much of note. The top Google hit is for the Chrome app page. But it looked like similar apps, with >10x as many users, didn't have Wikipedia pages. So the existence of a Chrome app is not in itself notable. Also the article as it exists now is basically nonsense. Lrieber (talk) 03:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ukexpat (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as by far nothing at all for both the applicable notability and also for any independent minimal notability. SwisterTwister talk 08:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Lectonar per CSD G12 (unambiguous copyright infringement). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grupamento de Unidade Escola - 9ª Brigada de Infantaria Motorizada

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected to Air Caraïbes destinations. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 03:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Destinations d'Air Caraïbes

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

Double-entry of this article Maxxies (talk) 01:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fabio Mancini

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

No assertion of notability. The only editors are SPAs, so a prod would likely be an automatic failure. The subject is an Italian model whose article is not borne out by third-party sources, but rather is extrapolating statements of professional activity and notability based on pictures in galleries and links to his management agencies and such (WP:TRIVIAL). I removed some blatant copyvio that was sourced to a different source in which it did not appear, but the article is peppered with RS issues, and I decided I'd bring it to AfD rather than effectively blank the article, but it's so unsourceable that that might as well be the case. MSJapan (talk) 01:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 01:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 01:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No third party reliable sources pertaining to WP:GNG: agency pages and Vogue seems to just about sum it up. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A quick Google search produces almost 500,000 results! Models.com and Vouge.com are widely used sources for models on Wikipedia. Whether these two references constitutes enough notability as a model to have an entry on our encyclopedia, I don't know, but it seems to me sufficient sources could be found for a small, well-written article. Best, Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 14:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-just a question: how many of those 500,000 hits are not blogs, YouTube, FaceBook, Instagram...?

_Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, very true, but Google search results are sometimes used in notability discussions to establish how frequent an individuals name is mentioned on the internet. Best, Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 15:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are a lot of hits, but they are primarily just a name and some photos - there's no depth of coverage of the person, which is really what's needed for a BLP. MSJapan (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, going just by the number of hits on Google is listed as one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Essentially, the quality of the sources found by a search engine matters far more than the quantity. Mz7 (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hmm. Are we saying that Vogue - VOGUE?!? - isn't a reliable source for evidence of notability of fashion or models? It's only one of the most internationally famed fashion magazines in the world. Anmyway, having had a look around, even after filtering out a lot of the clearly useless sources, I see a lot of sources in various languages on him which is evidence of international awareness and notability. Although there's a TON of bumf to filter through, I did find some sources that seem more reliable than usual, such as a piece in IO Donna, a notable Italian magazine: [24], and an extensive piece in what seems to be a well-established online Dutch magazine with editorial team and control. And a model being the subject/focus of a piece in Vogue such as this is a huge deal in fashion and very rare for any but the most noteworthy models. The article is lightweight, but it does go into a little depth about the model and his regime, so I think when taken in conjunction with the other sources, it helps build up evidence of notability. Mabalu (talk) 11:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - The issue is that Vogue is not RS when its coverage is not independent of the subject, which an interview with the subject is clearly not. You even address some of the problem with that last article, where the coverage is "lightweight." WP:RS requires non-trivial coverage independent of the subject, so if everything is "lightweight" or interviews, we end up with a policy-based issue with trying to establish notability, which is my entire basic argument. MSJapan (talk) 04:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - On the other hand, we have to consider the nature of the material out there. There is a general tendency to sneer at fashion coverage as trivial and unworthy, particularly by editors who don't care about the subject or dismiss it offhand because it's not seen as weighty or worthy enough. If the Vogue source was the only one out there it certainly wouldn't be good enough, but it can be used to support an argument of general notability in conjunction with the two more substantial articles. Personally, I'm not really fussed about contemporary models, being more interested in designers and creators and general fashion, but from what I can see, I don't see a compelling reason to delete the article. Now if only people would get this invested in getting rid of all those trashy beauty pageant articles about young ladies whose sole claim to notability is usually that they mastered the art of smiling and walking at the same time in high heels and using their bodies to get men to award them prizes. Mabalu (talk) 11:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Independent" in the context of notability means having no vested interest in the subject. For example, the official corporate website of a subject definitely has a vested interest in promoting the subject, so we can't expect it to reveal all the negative details on that subject. However, just because an otherwise reputable magazine directly interviews a subject, that in itself does not mean the magazine has a vested interest in the subject. If it still has autonomy over what information it wants to publish, it is still considered independent of the subject. See Wikipedia:Independent sources. Mz7 (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons stated by Mabalu above. Shelbystripes (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I will accept Vogue as a RS for notability of a model. I don't buy the argument that an interview of the subject is not independent. An interview by a reliable independent source is an effective establishment of notability. Fieari (talk) 01:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - My reasoning on the matter is that an interview is entirely the direct words of the subject, so it can't be independent of the subject, and at best would be a primary source at that point. MSJapan (talk) 03:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MSJapan: The reason this doesn't hold water for me is the fact that it was published. A personal blog is non-independant. However, an interview was curated, edited, reviewed, and generally underwent an indepedant review process before being published. Yes, it's the subject's words, but the magazine selected which words of the subject to publish, and the questions were picked by the magazine as well. The entire situation is vastly different from a personal essay, blog, vlog, or whatever that we would not accept as coverage from an independant source. The magazine is not owned, nor controlled by the subject. This makes all the difference. Fieari (talk) 06:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I'm concerned both in terms of how much of a 'puff piece' the current article looks as well as the fact that tabloid-type sources are being brought up. However, I'm more inclined to keep the article then get rid of it, even if it should be reduced significantly in size, given the detailed reporting by both IO Donna and Vogue. I also think that his high placement in various "list of ___" type articles is a matter in his favor. An appropriate article would be considerably different than what we have now, but I think it wouldn't be nothing. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:46, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Draft at best instead for now as the article could at best actually be acceptable but we can also certainly wait a better article thus, although I was going to initially only go with Delete, I am willing to Draft if needed instead. SwisterTwister talk 00:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Weak, because I haven't evaluated all of the sources. I only looked at the one source which is being put forth as the most significant, i.e. the interview in Vogue. Normally, I would agree that Vogue is one of the most important publications in the fashion world, and thus certainly can be a WP:RS. But, the interview cited is just a bunch of softball questions lobbed at the subject, as a starting point for what I assume are carefully crafted responses and a framework on which to hang a bunch of soft-porn shots of abs and pecs. I don't know, maybe that's just how things work in the fashion world, but it doesn't strike me as the kind of sources we're looking for. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Voudouris

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

Started some companies that don't have articles. Occupation "Philantropist" and - according to this article - is an overall great guy. This is a promotional article about a most likely non-notable person. Srittau (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 21:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 21:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not at all suggestive of the needed solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be helpful if I created a page for the company? There are a large number of authoritative sources on the company. I can remove Philanthropist as an occupation and trim that section down if it would help keep the page. I can also add more sources I wanted to keep the sources very close to content in the submission. Internetdotcom (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the independent sources cover this person specifically.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The !votes following the nomination appear to possibly be based only upon the sourcing within the article. Note that per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is based upon the availability of sources, rather than the state of sourcing in articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Internetdotcom:, would you please provide some example sources for notability? I'm not asking that you put them in the article, just please show us a handful of your claimed "large number of authoritative sources" here in the AFD. Thank you, Fieari (talk) 01:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; couldn't find any worthwhile coverage. Blatantly fails WP:GNG. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin:I agree that in it's current form, the article doesn't meet GNG. Would anyone object to userfying the article so I can work on it a little to see if there is more coverage? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Fieari: Here are a few:

http://mustangs.about.com/od/autoshows/fl/7th-Annual-AmericanMuscle-Show-Attracts-3000-Mustangs.htm

http://www.off-road.com/blog/2016/04/26/american-muscle-to-give-away-2017-ford-raptor-and-supercharged-mustang/

http://www.mustangandfords.com/news/1604-americanmuscle-celebrates-10-years-with-built-mustang-and-new-raptor-giveaway/

http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1099822_americanmuscle-mustang-celebration-goes-off-with-a-bang

http://www.mustangandfords.com/events/1505-chip-foose-builds-an-810-horsepower-2015-mustang-to-give-away/

http://www.dailylocal.com/article/DL/20160229/BUSINESS/160229749

http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1017064_win-this-810-hp-2015-ford-mustang-built-by-chip-foose-and-modern-muscle-design-video

https://cdanews.com/2015/05/chip-foose-builds-2015-mustang-with-810-horsepower-to-give-away/

http://jalopnik.com/this-is-the-first-2015-ford-mustang-to-run-a-9-91-secon-1662776299

http://www.mustangandfords.com/featured-vehicles/1405-1993-ford-mustang-gt-staged-launch/

https://theshopmag.com/news/make-wish-foundation-stuns-18-year-old-americanmuscle-car-show

http://www.mustangandfords.com/features/1605-mustang-girl-monday-reesie-mcguigan-and-her-2000-gt/

http://www.stangtv.com/event-coverage/car-shows/2015-american-muscle-car-show-packs-maple-grove-with-mustangs/

Specific to Voudouris:

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/phillyinc/Malverns_Xoxide_wins_national_SBA_award.html

http://philadelphia.citybizlist.com/article/318611/a-video-conversation-with-steve-voudouris-president-of-turn5-part-i-interviewed-by-herb-fineburg

http://www.offitkurman.com/a-video-conversation-with-steve-voudouris-president-of-turn5-on-his-greatest-challenge/

https://www.sba.gov/nsbw/sites/all/documents/2009_program.pdf

http://www.keystoneedge.com/2009/12/17/2009-in-review-top-10-companies/

Internetdotcom (talk) 23:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:' Most of the sources above seem to be on the company, not the person, and hence isn't enough to confer notability for Steve.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WhatCulture.com

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

Non-notable organization lacking adequate support to establish WP:NOTABILITY. reddogsix (talk) 00:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's difficult to do Google searches on this website because Google News indexes it. However, I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. Its articles get cited in a few books on Google Books, but that's not enough to establish notability. There's also this article from Mena Report archived on Highbeam Research, but it sure looks a lot like a press release to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@NinjaRobotPirate: Using a -site:whatculture.com can be done to remove results from the site in question. --Izno (talk) 12:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I prodded this before for essentially the same concerns over notability. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. If there are more citable sources about WhatCulture.com then deletion is not needed, but since they are opening a pro wrestling promotion with weekly shows in two weeks time which may meet the Notability criteria, this AfD discussion might get ugly. However, even if there's still no citable web coverage of the website after three weeks of their pro wrestling shows, then I don't mind this article getting deleted. Kyrios320 (talk) 07:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. not an encyclopedia article DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CECS research supplement trial

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

1st-person account of original research, without a single source to its name Orange Mike | Talk 00:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete More essay–like than any legitimate research. Major WP:COI and WP:OR.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTESSAY, article has WP:COI issues. Also it fails WP:GNG. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Entirely consists of Original Research. If this was published in a scientific journal, information from it could be added to the CECS article, but this is not the place to publish it, and even if it was published, it wouldn't rate a Wikipedia article in and of itself. It would be a source, not be something other sources write about. Fieari (talk) 02:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Mann (artist)

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

Non-notable watercolour artist. According to a previous PROD attempt "Watercolour society she belongs to can be joined by anyone for $35". The references do nothing to demonstrate notability. Google search suggests that she is very far from being the most notable person of her name. I'm not seeing anything relevant in Google News for a search on "Carol Mann", watercolor. DanielRigal (talk) 00:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 00:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clearly not notable. Searches come up with nothing, fails WP:GNG. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fieari (talk) 02:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My one search on google certainly did not find nothing. In the first three minutes on google I found Carole Mann and articles showing two awards she had won for her paintings. First, she won

the Sallie T. Griffin Memorial award for her work, "Treasured Tulips" in 2013 at the juried WSNC 68th Annual Exhibition in Blowing Rock, North Carolina. See here: [25]. Also, Mann was awarded the East Carolina Wildfowl Guild Award for the her entry showing North Carolina wildlife, entitled Four Afloat in 2015 at the 51st Annual Fine Arts show at the Arts of the Pamlico gallery. See here: [26] The artist is clearly notable for having won at least two awards that I found in the first three minutes of searching google. I have added these two awards to the article. It is most probable that the nominator did not observe WP:BEFORE Plus the first participants in this AFD discussion say #1 just seven minutes after nominator "Searches come up with nothing" and #2 blindly agrees with #1. Astonishing really. This article subject does pass WP:GNG if you do a proper search. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 03:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 1. Member of watercolour society that anyone can join for $35 USD. 2. Recipient of non-notable award run by the society anyone can join. 3. No mention in the real professional art world. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 05:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you can get a custom Carol mann for only $150-$300 USD, according to this page provided as an external link. This is a really great deal for an artist considered notable by Wikipedia, when paintings by other notable artists on Wikipedia like Gerhard Richter are going for $15 million or more!HappyValleyEditor (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Observation This is an unrealistic requirement. If the fact that someone's work is not as expensive as Richter's were ever to become a standard by which we decide if an artist is notable, wikipedia would have to AfD all living European artists, except for Richter, since Richter's work appears to be the most expensive of any living European artist. Mduvekot (talk) 12:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mduvekot.. that was humour. The point: notable artists are not generally offering custom original artwork for $150-300. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 07:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. trivial awards; notices of such awards do not serve to show notability DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I also concur there's nothing particularly convincing from the information and sources to actually suggest the needed notability here. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep': Appears to be notable at a state level, adequate third-party recognition. I also agree with Mduvekot that the price of individual pieces of art from a living artist is not a terribly useful standard. Awards and news coverage helps establish GNG and here I think it's met. Montanabw ^(talk) 05:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Montanabw: It is entirely reasonable to conclude that if an artist is selling custom paintings of their work for $150 to $300, as this one is, they are not a notable artist. Notable artists have demand for their work, which generates higher prices than the bargain basement price of $150-$300... for a custom work. One cannot determine a tipping point for price/notability, but it is undoubtedly a lot higher than $150-300. More importantly, this artist has not been validated by any siginificant independent external source (e.g. museums, critical reviews outside of small-town newspapers, art journals, collections, siginificant contribtion to the field of art etc.) as is required in WP:CREATIVE. This is an entirely non-notable artist, as anyone with professional experience in the artistic field would tell you in about half a second.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From the requirement at WP:CREATIVE:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. Nope
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. Nope
The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work.... Nope
The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, Nope
(b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, Nope
(c) has won significant critical attention, or Nope
(d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. NopeHappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.