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 AFD IS LISTED AT Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gunjō no Tani (2nd nomination). (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^Talk 02:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Does not meet the guidelines of Notability of Recordings nor does it show any indication of importance. QuartzReload ( talk) 00:29, 9 December 2015 (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. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

Fails WP:BIO. An unsourced biography of a recently deceased local character. Claim that she was "an iconic character" among locals seems to rule out a Speedy A7. Article was redirected to the locality, but undone on basis that there is no mention of her in that article. A dump-and-run, single-edit article creation by an editor who was active for one day, never came back to the article and didn't respond to attempts to discuss it. No reliable sources have been found for this person (not even her actual name). The only coverage found has been in user-generated social media, and much of that was derogatory. Meters ( talk) 23:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. sst✈ ^(discuss) 07:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - no sources and even if there were she wouldn't be notable. There's nothing to suggest that this person even existed. Unknown Unknowns ( talk) 13:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - The assertion that the subject was an iconic local character is not supported by any reliable sources. In fact, nothing in the article is supported by any sort of sourcing, nor could I find any myself. -- Whpq ( talk) 20:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No substantial coverage from reliable sources offered or to be found. There is a an apparently unrelated blog with the same name. -- Hobbes Goodyear ( talk) 05:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Yes, the gardening blog is someone else. Meters ( talk) 05:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:06, 17 December 2015 (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. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Space Patrol Chronicles (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

This AfD is related to this AfD related to Warren Chaney. Long story short, this article is one of a few Chaney related articles that were created by SPAs. A look at the articles and its sources show the same issues as the America article. Very few of them can actually be verified and the ones that can be linked to show that they're pretty obviously unusable. What makes things worse is that many of the unverifiable sources claim to be published through outlets that have released work within at least the past 1-2 years, yet there's pretty much no record of these publications on the Internet. Now I will note that the publisher's website has images of the files, but I don't know that I can trust them given that there's pretty much zero record of these publications on the Internet. I have to assume that even if they do exist, the lack of information about them would make them unverifiable as far as editorial oversight goes and would thus make them unusable.

It also doesn't help that the article also relies quite heavily on sources that are primary in one way or another as in the case with the Swapsale links, which shows that the site sold these books at one point in time and the person who wrote the Swapsale review also knows Chaney. Furthermore, the article tries to claim that the sale page is actually a review for the books. On top of all of this, there are some links that are misrepresented as links that comment upon the book... but don't actually mention the book.

There are also links that are about the show as a whole. Notability is not inherited and as far as I can tell, these books are not official merchandise and I have to assume that this is someone's fanfiction. A look at the publisher shows that they only publish work by two authors, one of which is Chaney. Also interesting is that although the book page says that the publisher is located in London (per the infobox) the website says that it's American. I'm also uncertain as to whether or not Chaney is part of the publishing company or not. There's nothing to really back this up, but it's usually suspicious when a publisher only sells the work of 1-2 authors and is usually a sign that it was started by said individuals.

I've made a runthrough of the sources on the article's talk page and I'll post those here in a moment. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Here are the sources. I left off the last few since they were already used above and it'd be somewhat redundant to repost them. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Note: I've opened up an AfD for another Chaney related article here, for Magic Mansion and the related list article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. None of the sources can be trusted, even those on the publisher's website, which is registered to Steven Deyo, supposed Director of Public Relations at Adjei Productions, which links back to Chaney himself. This isn't a publisher with any kind of reputation at all, existing only as a front for the American: A Call for Greatness website (itself registered to someone at Chaney's company) and the Space Patrol books. As with the reviewers of that 'film', the images of reviews from other publications can't be verified. Nor even can their publishers' existence. Oh, and as for the "Remington-Collier, London" tag, there's no record of this publisher with Companies House either. Steve  ^{T •  C} 23:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Solid work on finding the link to Chaney. I figured that this was the case. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete per lack of verifiability, as detailed by Tokyogirl79 and Steve. Erik ( talk |  contrib) ^{( ping me)} 23:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete Yet another use of WikiP for WP:SELFPROMOTION by this group of SPA's. My thanks to everyone involved for your work in uncovering this. MarnetteD| Talk 23:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete per an epic failure in sourcing as analyzed above. Even if there is some legitimacy to the topic, what is currently here is unusable and requires deletion. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. This is getting curiouser and curiouser. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 00:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. It's on sale at Amazon, but there's no evidence that it ever received significant coverage in reliable sources. I'd agree with the prevailing opinion that it's best to TNT-delete these articles and start over from scratch once there are enough sources to potentially show notability. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 02:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. sst✈ ^(discuss) 07:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. sst✈ ^(discuss) 08:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete, does not meet the significant coverage requirement of WP:GNG. sst✈ ^(discuss) 08:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete delete delete. No notability and no reliable sources. Permstrump ( talk) 09:49, 11 December 2015 (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. Mark Arsten ( talk) 22:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

WP:NEO issues. The purported sources do not support the topic. Actually most of them don't even mention the word. Guy ( Help!) 22:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete, neologism with no currency and not mentioned by the references - David Gerard ( talk) 15:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Weak Delete The sources given look like a blog and a bunch of stuff which doesn't mention the article name. While you can find the term in scholarly papers, the papers don't give extensive coverage of the term itself, as far as I can see. Nwlaw63 ( talk) 00:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was deleted by User:RHaworth. (Non-admin closure) " Pepper" @ 03:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Fahad Ahmed Yahya Al-Zahrani (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG. The given sources are routine coverage of equally routine university board meetings that do not discuss Al-Zahrani in any detail. Google Scholar hits are scarce and mostly conference proceedings. Huon ( talk) 20:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Discounting the very obvious votestacking (whether it's socking or meatpuppetry is irrelevant) this comes out to delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst: spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst: csm|username}} or {{subst: csp|username}}.

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

Fails to meet WP:ORG. Article is also poorly written and sounds more like an advertisement than a encyclopedia article. A7 and G11 speedy's have been removed by various people. Karl 334 ^{Talk- -Contribs} 18:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep: I was skeptical when I saw a company formed by five 15 year olds, but the references to articles in Bayerischer Rundfunk and Münchner Merkur satisfy GNG. — teb728 t c 19:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC) On second thought, strip back and convert to an article about their film Olympia 72. It is the film which is notable—not the studio. reply

KEEP : Hi, my name is Alexander Spöri, I'm one of the founders of "MovieJam Studios. I don't see a problem with the article, is there one? So in case there is one, it would change the mistake or rewrite the paragraph. It was a lot of work to right it. Because we're speaking all german. So please keep calm. Would be nice, if you won't delete it! 91.63.238.198 ( talk) 19:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC) 91.63.238.198 ( talk) 19:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC) — 91.63.238.198 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

@ Aspoeri2001: The main issue here is whether your studio is important enough for an article in an encyclopedia. Most companies are not that important, and as you know, your article was speedily deleted from German Wikipedia for just that reason. Another issue is that the article is not written from the neutral point of view which an encyclopedia requires. We are not asking you to rewrite it—indeed because of your conflict of interest on the subject you are strongly discouraged from creating and editing the article at all. — teb728 t c 22:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep: Just added all citations 2003:62:4328:A200:5DBD:1FE1:68C:33BC ( talk) 06:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC) — 2003:62:4328:A200:5DBD:1FE1:68C:33BC ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

• Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. sst✈ ^(discuss) 08:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. sst✈ ^(discuss) 08:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. sst✈ ^(discuss) 08:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst✈ ^(discuss) 08:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete fails WP:CORP and conflict of interest concerns. LibStar ( talk) 14:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep : : I think the article is ordinary at this particular time, could stay in my opinion 84.168.71.153 ( talk) 11:49 am, Today (UTC−7)

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

hilarious being ordinary is not a criterion for notability. LibStar ( talk) 13:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep : : That's right @84.168.71.153, could stay now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspoeri2001 ( talk • contribs) 11:51 am, Today (UTC−7) Aspoeri2001 ( talk) 11:59 am, Today (UTC−7)
• Delete for now as the not even one year old age and the current list of sources is starters enough to show this company is not yet solidly notable. SwisterTwister talk 00:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep is okay now, it's on Google Business as well. 84.168.92.66 ( talk) 12:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

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

being ok or on google business is not a criteria for notability. LibStar ( talk) 13:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep it's on in Google Business listed now, so I think there are enough sources and citations. 8200882008a ( talk) 12:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

— 8200882008a ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@ 8200882008a: You reversed my !vote above: That is not acceptable. I have reverted your vandalism. — teb728 t c 13:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep are there enough sources etc. now? I think it does satisfy. Aspoeri2001 ( talk) 13:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

you cannot !vote twice and please stop swarming this page with multiple votes. LibStar ( talk) 13:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment it's very obvious all the new accounts voting here are all the same person or affiliated with the company. LibStar ( talk) 13:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment the Münchner Merkur, Bayerischer Rundfunk, Telefonica with the project Think Big, as well as 02 (Communications company), Rodney Sewell, Sebastian Wild, Google, Mathäser (Munich's most famous cinema), IMDb have approved this company and confirmed it on their websites, have written articles (everything is in the referneces on MovieJamStudios, as well as Google Business and Google News had approved everything. We could change the tone in the article, according to his subject, without Alexander Spöri, but I don't see your points and the problemes, I think it's fine? 84.168.92.66 ( talk) 13:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

The only refs that are worth anything are the BR and the Merkur. Facebook is not a reliable source. The think-big.org, muenchen72.com, and moviejam.de were written by you; so they are worthless for showing notability. And the sewell.de doesn’t even mention you. — teb728 t c 14:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment Think-Big.org is a german site, written by Telefonica and 02. They were supporting us with Sponsoring and money, and we made some videos for them as well. It's not not write by us, it's the sponsoring company's site. At the end is written on german (down below), that they were our sponsors etc.

But this was an facebook post, by Rodney Sewell, which mentioned that he is mentoring us. Otherwise there is a source, where is written that we made a intership at Rodney Sewell Productions. Google is worthless? Google also inserted it a few days ago. Just google [MovieJamStudios]] on google.de, Adobe has written an user story about MovieJamStudios as well. 84.168.92.66 ( talk) 16:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

think-big.org may be owned by Telefonica, but the think-big.org page you cite is written in the first person; for example, “Wir sind Schülerinnen und Schüler des Lise-Meitner Gymnasiums” (“We are students of the Lise-Meitner Gymnasium”). So the page is written by you not by them.

As I said before, Wikipedia does not consider Facebook to be a reliable source. Likewise IMDb: being listed there means little more than that you exist.

You ask, “Google is worthless?” Yes, Absolutely for showing notability!!! Listing there means only that you are mentioned on the web: Places like the English Wikipedia page we are discussing or your webpages or your Facebook page. What is interesting on Google is that it doesn’t show you mentioned on German Wikipedia; dewiki must not think you are notable.

So that leaves us with only the BR and Merkur pages, and I seem to be the only Wikipedian here who is impressed even with them. — teb728 t c 11:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply

...and the O2 and Telefonica article. The german Wikipedia article wasn't released by us and it was really really bad (more than our English one ;)) I don't see the problem. Everyone above has said, that the tone is more an advertisement, so let's change the whole tone!! But I think our company definitely shows notability? If you don't believe me, the BR and Merkur would be still enough? Could we find a solution, for both of us, change the tone, some paragraphs, etc.

OK? Would be very nice. These fake accounts, if they are some, these are definitely not from us, okay? 91.63.251.161 ( talk) 11:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply

and the think-big.org is NOT written by us, it's only an citation on the website from ours. But scroll down below the description, right? There is written that the Medienzentrum München and Telefonica and O2 were our sponsors, partners, and we made some videos for them. There is also the reference for Germany's best youth movie written, just read it... 91.63.251.161 ( talk) 11:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep IF that's written there, I would say we could find a solution, if we change the article's tone? What do you think @teb728 ? 2003:62:4348:F700:418B:F6A9:1565:26AB ( talk) 14:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply

— 2003:62:4348:F700:418B:F6A9:1565:26AB ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete Insufficient reliable sources to demonstrate notability. All of the COI on this AFD page doesn't really help, either. If it's really notable, it needs to be rewritten by someone without a COI anyway. —  kikichugirl  ^oh hello! 21:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete No apparent notability, and all of the COI is dreadful. The puppetry of both sorts on this AfD is overwhelming, and proves the issues with COI. Kharkiv07 ( T) 23:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH and Kharkiv07 is spot on about the COI. MarnetteD| Talk 00:57, 17 December 2015 (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. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply

America: A Call to Greatness (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:FILMNOT for lack of independent reliable coverage. As written, the article has dubious promotional text with circular or self-published sourcing which places it on the border of a WP:HOAX. (For example, the article quotes from the website a 2010 review in Screen Times Magazine, for which I find no existence, by a writer named Winston J. Aaronson, whose only hit on google is uploading Warren Chaney books to Open Library.) The article appears to be part of a longterm agenda by SPA editors to create a hagiography and walled garden for Warren Chaney. Although some production appears to exist in some form, so much of the article may be fraudulent, that I recommend it can only be corrected (if ever) from scratch. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:HOAX due to lack of verifiability of this topic from reliable sources. Erik ( talk |  contrib) ^{( ping me)} 18:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:HOAX. also agree with the nom about the hagiography aspect of the article. MarnetteD| Talk 19:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I can't find any details on this film in reliable sources. I checked the American Film Institute, British Film Institute, Variety, Allmovie, The New York Times, and pretty much every other reliable film database that I could think of. Yes, it's possible for a film to escape notice, but even a low budget exploitation like Ninja Apocalypse leaves behind a trail of evidence that it existed. The one hit that I did find, this article in what looks like a local newspaper or newsletter, is a mere trivial mention. If this film does exist, then it's going to need to demonstrate notability and verifiability much better than the current article does. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 21:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• I hit the same dead ends as NinjaRobotPirate in trying to find a reliable source to verify the existence of this film and I'd like to note that while small, low budget films might fall through the cracks, there's absolutely no way that a movie would go unnoticed if it had the cast that this movie claims: Charlton Heston, Mickey Rooney, Buzz Aldrin, Gene Autry, Rita Moreno, etc. Permstrump ( talk) 00:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment: If there are a mass of SPAs editing on Chaney related articles I'd highly, highly recommend that you open an SPI to see if there's any socking or meating going on. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• @ CactusWriter: Have you looked at the other pages for this guy? If this article is like this then it's extremely likely that the other articles will have the same issue, including Chaney's page itself. He may be notable, but at this point I think that it needs to be seriously investigated. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Tokyogirl79, join the discussion here. :) Erik ( talk |  contrib) ^{( ping me)} 22:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• You're awesome, Eric. On a side note, I'm about to nominate the guy's book series for deletion - none of the sources seem to check out as usable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Thanks for jumping in, Tokyogirl79. Erik pointed you to the linked discussion, so you can see that this AFD is just the start of the clean up. An SPI will be in progress soon. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Looks like we've got a weird one here. Just for fun I started looking up some other things in Chaney's "Superb Speakers" profile.

  First thing checked: Using Neuroplasticity to Achieve Cognitive Change, Warren H. Chaney, Ph.D., Journal of Applied Cognitive-Behavioral Science, Volume 5, 1st Quarter, 2009, pp. 132-145.

  Google doesn't know anything about the title or the journal

  Second thing checked: The Right Stuff - What is It? Warren H. Chaney, Ph.D., Your New Mind, (On Line Journal), 1st Quarter, 2008.

  "Your New Mind" took some searching, but I found it! Behold a .blogspot blog with two posts, one of which is Chaney's -- basically an ad for Mind Dynamics’ Workshops.

  Yikes — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. No evidence from a reliable source to suggest this even exists; none of the sources check out as reliable (the movie's website is registered to Carrie Sheldon of the Mind Technologies Institute in TX, at which Chaney was supposedly CEO until 2012) I think we're about to find that almost every word written about Chaney and his supposed films is one of the knottiest hoaxes we've ever encountered (another fun fact: Chaney's 'publisher' Remington-Collier London (which doesn't have an entry at Companies House) has a website registered to Steven Deyo, supposed Director of Public Relations at Adjei Productions, which links back to Chaney himself. This is going to take some time to unravel). Steve  ^{T •  C} 22:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• I recognize the name Adjei from another active AfD for the book Dynamic Mind by Warren Chaney. Someone with the last name Adjei wrote an article for a school newspaper that was cited on the page for Dynamic Mind. I did find the actual article online and it did have something to do with Chaney and his theories, but of course it didn't once mention Dynamic Mind. I imagine he named the production company after a relative or something. That also explains the mystery as to why the heck someone wrote an article about him for a school newspaper. Permstrump ( talk) 23:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete per above. I found little to back up the claims and I also have to note that some of the sources weren't even what they claimed to be. One of the sources claims to be Box Office Mojo, but links to IMDb. There seems to be some pretty clear deception going on here, so unless we can verify any and all sources 100% I have to assume that anything we cannot see and research has to be false. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• On a side note, I've opened an AfD for his book series here. That article has many, MANY issues similar to this one, including some blatant misrepresentation of sources and several publications that do not seem to exist when you search for their titles, giving off the impression that they either don't exist or they wouldn't be usable as a source even if they were legit. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete per everything above. Wow. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 00:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Dbrodbeck, how many more years do you think it would have been before this was discovered if you hadn't made the AfD for Dynamic Mind? Permstrump ( talk) 00:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Note: I've opened up an AfD for another Chaney related article here, for Magic Mansion and the related list article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete: WP:HOAX and violates WP:BLP. This article claims to be about a “docudrama” with an ensemble cast of well-known celebrities. Celebrities listed in the cast include: Charlton Heston, Mickey Rooney, Buzz Aldrin, Gene Autry, Rita Moreno, and a plethora of other living or recently deceased persons. However, I haven’t been able to find a single reliable source that independently corroborates that any of the celebrities listed in the cast were ever in a film by this name. There are currently 28 [mostly] legitimate BLPs that backlink to this one in references to major actors’ supposed role in this film. When the page was first created in 2011, concerns were raised on its talk page about the lack of neutrality and lack of reliable sources, but those comments were deleted several months later by an SPA dedicated to editing articles related to Warren Chaney. Permstrump ( talk) 00:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Alts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Delete for failing WP:NF. While I cannot really doubt the participation of certain senior notables after seeing them in the film trailer with my own eyes, their taking part was likely encouraged by their being personally quite patriotic. So what? A collection of to-camera sound-bytes, interspersed with stock footage film clips, images, music and patriotic rhetoric is not inherently notable, though a mention in other articles of someone being in a non-notable film project is fine enough IF they can be seen in that project. One can only speculate why their participation caught no media, but in lacking coverage notability is failed. I laughed when i saw the same actor playing both Benjamin Franklin and John Adams. And while it "may" actually exist, it has made no lasting mark. Wikipedia is not for promotion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete I went at this from the other direction - the claim about Gene Autry and a new recording of America the Beautiful being released circa 1995 - the music folks are pretty thorough, and I found no such new recording at all. Result - delete. And suggest deletion of all connections made in other Wikipedia articles. The film qua film fails notability. Collect ( talk) 15:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• DELETE I checked 8 refs and deleted them all. Two were IMDB (not reliable), and the other six all failed Verification. I did significant internet searching and I found squat. Everything about this article raises WP:REDFLAG. The article is almost entirely unsourced, it claims an EXTRAORDINARY range of starring roles which have somehow attracted zero mention in independent sources, and the article-creator has been blocked. The trailer with Charlton Heston and others seems to indicate *something* exists, but this article requires application of WP:DYNAMITE. If a well established and responsible editor finds proper independent sourcing, I endorse giving them access to the deleted copy to mine for anything usable. Alsee ( talk) 16:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I remember running into Chaney/Magic Mansion/etc on Wikipedia a couple of years ago (just looked it up and it seems to have been in 2011) and thinking that the whole thing didn't quite pass the smell test but couldn't put my finger on exactly *why*... (Btw, Chaney is married to Deborah Winters, an actress of somewhat dubious notability.) The "documentary" (or whatever it is) seems to have been broadcast only once (if at all) - not every TV show or special or commercial that aired on American television is notable.

Now, this is where it gets interesting...I think that this "film" is probably a promo piece for a book by John W Chalfant, a book that was apparently originally published in 1996. If you go to Page ii at America-A Call to Greatness Google Book link you can see the various copyright dates. The website 'www.greatness.com" now belongs to a different entity but Chalfant now has a website of "greatness.us" where you can see all his views. Xulon Press, the publisher of "American: A Call..." is a Christian/on-demand self-publishing company. Shearonink ( talk) 18:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• @ Shearonink: I had found the book but couldn't make any connection other than the title. All my searches for the publisher and author and figures involved with the film (Charlton Heston, Warren Chaney, Mickey Rooney, Paige-Brace, Millennial Entertainment, etc.) turned up nothing. Have you seen anything else other than the timing? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Well, to be crass it would behoove the 'producers' to make the promo piece/infomercial appear to be more significant than it actually was. I have seen nothing specifically sourced but to me this is similar to "likely a [whatever] based on evidence" edit summary I see on Wikipedia from time to time. For instance: 1)The book is under copyright. 2) The book seems to have the same content & POV as the film. 3) Both works appear to have been created around the same time. 4) But this is the clincher - Trademark registration(abandoned) AND Trademark protection - for phrase? - originally filed 1992, registered in 1996. So during the early 1990s, during the time the "documentary" was filmed, the exact phrase was under trademark protection. Shearonink ( talk) 18:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• @ Shearonink: My brain is getting tired from researching the Chaneyverse and I think I need a little help connecting those dots. Do most movies/books trademark their names? It looks like the trademark is associated with the nonprofit/religious organization (EIN 20-1423183) called America-A Call to Greatness, which is also under the name John Chalfant (same as the book's author). Apparently they were incorporated in 2003, but haven't filed taxes because they've been reporting $0 income. It makes sense that they'd be connected, but I wish some names overlapped. Permstrump ( talk) 06:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply

( edit conflict)@ Permstrump:In 1995, during the time that this two-hour promotional-film was created, the phrase "America: A Call to Greatness" was under trademark protection, as a service-mark or trademark of "America: A Call to Greatness Inc", the papers being filed on behalf of John W. Chalfant and his company. Most book titles aren't able to be trademarked, because they aren't unique enough. However, if a book series becomes successful and, for example, another writer and/or publisher tried to publish a new "Harry Potter and the [whatever]" that would not be allowed under law because Harry Potter is a recognizable brand (much in the same way as Chanel or Ford Cars or McDonald's is). Now, since Chalfant had the phrase under trademark protection at the time this "movie" was produced, the "Movie" has the same types of material - the Christian religion influencing the founding of the United States - it is an informed supposition that the movie/the book are one and the same. Warren Chaney's company, "Dynamic Media", bought the rights to the film in 2001 (per [1]), however, nowhere in the movie is the book or its author mentioned, nowhere in the book is this movie mentioned. We can suppose all we want and I can deduce that something is true but that doesn't mean there is a verifiable source that states this truth. So, as far as I can tell, the movie did not receive a theatrical release, it seems to have been mostly exhibited privately - in churches, at conventions (it received its premiere at an annual convention of "The Council for National Policy" a conservative group). The movie does exist (not a HOAX) but I does not seem notable to me. Shearonink ( talk) 08:01, 13 December 2015 (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. Mark Arsten ( talk) 22:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai ( talk) 18:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 18:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 19:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete Non-notable minor league player who doesn't rise to the level of WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. - DJSasso ( talk) 21:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Strong Delete: Completely NN player who played parts of only three minor pro seasons. Unsurprisingly, this is another stub creation of the notorious Dolovis, who seems to be responsible for most of the ice hockey AfDs filed in the last couple of years. Ravenswing 13:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Per WP:NHOCKEY/LA, the Central Hockey League (1963–1984) is a lower-level league in which a player accrues notability under WP:NHOCKEY #4: Achieved preeminent honors (all-time top ten career scorer, First Team All-Star, All-American) in a lower minor league, in a major junior league, or in a major collegiate hockey league (Note: merely playing in a major junior league or major collegiate hockey is not enough to satisfy inclusion requirements). But nothing written or sourced in this article rises to that level. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 23:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Is it just First Team All-Stars, not second or third? Baran was a QMJHL third team all-star in 1981–82 according to eliteprospects. Delete otherwise. -- Parkfly20 ( talk) 22:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply

"First Team All-Stars" is the explicit text, and that explicitly (and by design) leaves out Second and Third Team All-Stars. Ravenswing 18:30, 12 December 2015 (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. Mark Arsten ( talk) 22:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

Non-notable academic. Fails WP:PROF. Emeritus is not a distinguished chair, the Association for Clinical Pastoral Education is not a major society, WorldCat shows no significant books. Many unsourced promotional claims in the text. DGG ( talk ) 18:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Seemingly nothing to even suggest somewhat of a better article yet, draft and userfy later if needed. SwisterTwister talk 19:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete seems to have had a worthy career, but not a notable one.-- Samuel J. Howard ( talk) 15:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- claims seem acceptably written given the CV as source, but do not amount to a GNG or WP:PROF pass. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete fine article and career, but I'm not seeing anything to meet General Notability Guideline or Academic Notability Guideline. Alsee ( talk) 21:17, 10 December 2015 (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. Mark Arsten ( talk) 22:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

Only one notable anime role as Yuko in Ef. GamePlaza Haruka only shows 21 roles, mostly minor ones. So I don't believe this meets WP:ENT. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 17:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 17:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 17:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 17:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 17:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom.-- 十 八 22:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Nothing to even suggest better general notability and there was certainly enough time for this to improve and we can wait for a better article whenever that happens. Notifying tagger Boleyn. SwisterTwister talk 02:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete I couldn't stablish that this could meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Has articles in 3 other languages, but all are the same as this. Boleyn ( talk) 07:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Coverage is lacking in either English or Japanese. To make matters worse, there appears to be an academic with the same name and even kanji, so false positives are prevalent. Narutolovehinata5 ^{t c csd new} 13:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete I do not see any significant roles. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 23:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete Per nom. WP:VG's custom RS search for video game oriented sources has no hits beyond Metacritic and GameTrailers for ef. -- ferret ( talk) 17:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete as non notable voice actor, fails gng; – Davey2010 ^Talk 02:16, 16 December 2015 (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. Mark Arsten ( talk) 22:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Lightning Scientific Martial Arts and Physical Culture (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced article by an SPA about a non-notable martial arts organization. Fails WP:GNG and there's nothing to show this organization meets any of the notability criteria at WP:MANOTE or WP:NORG. Mdtemp ( talk) 17:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 17:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete As per nominator. Heavily advert with no indication of notability. Peter Rehse ( talk) 17:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete No sources or indication of notability. Papaursa ( talk) 15:16, 12 December 2015 (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. Mark Arsten ( talk) 22:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

Lacks the significant independent coverage in reliable sources needed to meet WP:GNG. Doesn't appear to have won any major pro wrestling titles and didn't have major acting roles to meet WP:NACTOR. Mdtemp ( talk) 17:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 17:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 17:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 17:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete as searches noticeably found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 02:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete My search found no significant independent coverage from reliable sources that would show that he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa ( talk) 22:10, 15 December 2015 (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. Mark Arsten ( talk) 02:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

Non-notable actor with only 1 major starring role. Natg 19 ( talk) 23:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 ( talk) 23:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 ( talk) 23:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 ( talk) 23:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - I entirely agree as this is obvious, not notable or otherwise well-known major actor. SwisterTwister talk 04:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep, has sources sources. HarrySnake ( talk) 18:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Note to closer: HarrySnake is a suspected sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AS92813.— Bagumba ( talk) 11:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC) reply
  • A list of work is simply not enough for considerable improvement. SwisterTwister talk 20:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete One second tier role in a film is not enough to justify an article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:43, 12 December 2015 (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. Mark Arsten ( talk) 02:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply

List of guests on Tom Green's House Tonight (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

The list is trivial. Koala15 ( talk) 00:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and non-notable list per WP:NOTESAL. FuriouslySerene ( talk) 14:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• A list of everybody who ever appeared as an interview guest on a talk show is not a thing we should be maintaining — it's WP:INDISCRIMINATE trivia, which nuzzles up far too close to the edge of complete unmaintainability. And for that matter, nearly all of the sourcing here is to primary sources and blogs rather than to any real reliable source coverage. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 18:31, 11 December 2015 (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. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

Non-notable musician. One viral video, and a couple of unremarkable singles and an EP. The only independent sources are a brief blip of coverage for the viral video. WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 13:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Clearly not notable yet and there's nothing to suggest he's anything other than a marginally known person. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 25 November 2015 (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 List of magazines in Pakistan#Urdu magazines for children. And merge to the extent supported by consensus.  Sandstein  18:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply

List of Urdu magazines for children (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Duplicate of List of magazines in Pakistan#Urdu magazines for children kashmiri ^TALK 00:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Merge, this is presenting valuable information but the main list isn't long enough to need splitting. Siuenti ( talk) 22:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Merge with no prejudice against a resplit if and when needed. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 18:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete as unnecessary duplicate. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 05:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment Are there any notable Urdu magazines outside of Pakistan? -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 04:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply

23 entries in Category:Urdu-language magazines. But we don't need to listify this small category in genre and also country. Hence suggested delete than redirect to Pakistan's list. Even if there are no notable children+urdu+magazines outside Pakistan, its a quite generic term to redirect to a specific country. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 04:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete per above. -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 05:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Merge unnecessary to have this as a separate page, when its contents are so sparse. Recreating it, if and when it becomes necessary, is quite simple. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 13:20, 17 December 2015 (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. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The article might pass for WP:ANYBIO since Herbein is known for his connection to the events related to the Three Mile Island accident. However, there is not enough info to pass for WP:GNG. Hitcher vs. Candyman ( talk) 17:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa  Talk  17:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Apparently no obvious general notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:44, 3 December 2015 (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  18:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

Does not meet GNG nor WP:BIO; subject has coverage in tabloid media (newspapers). Subject has done nothing notable other than founding a company. Ireneshih ( talk) 11:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa  Talk  14:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Musa  Talk  14:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per nomination. Also note that the sources are external links to non-specific information, just general links. Debresser ( talk) 14:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep Granted, it is an obvious piece of self-promotion and needs paring down. Creative professionals in all fields do this on Wikipedia (or try), the thing is, we keep the articles if notability can be verified. Even if they are lousy articles. But this is far from the worst of the type: it actually has some usable sources. Coverage in tabloids such as ABC certainly counts towards notability. Note, however, that El Economista is not a tabloid. And legitimate Hebrew news media ( TheMarker) that cover business. There does seem to be notability established by these sources and by sources including: [2] for Meiri/Orpan Group under WP:CREATIVE "# 3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." i.e., the attractions he and his company creates garner significant media attention. He falls more or less into the category of notable curators or set designers; see, for example, Lisa Small, George Tsypin). I have added category: museum exhibit designers to article, click on it and see that we have multiple articles about careers of this type. Also, where a creative artist and the corporation he founds are more or less synonymous, we have a single article with notability supported by articles about the artist and/or about the corporation (cf. Georg Jensen; Anne Klein) E.M.Gregory ( talk) 17:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Slightly Weak Keep, nominator routinely nominates articles and mentions "tabloid" newspapers but either uses that as a weasel word or doesn't realize the distinction in printing between tabloid and broadsheet. Regardless, there's enough sources and claims and assertions of notability to keep this, even a bit weakly though.
• Delete too many of the citations are to building that don't even mention him. This is almost a "one event person" as those articles that do mention him are predominately about Toledo. The coverage is not in-depth. -- Bejnar ( talk) 19:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG - 5 trivial mentions on News; zip on Newspapers, Highbeam and Scholar; a single trivial hit on Books. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:24, 17 December 2015 (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. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

PROD material which I considered but chose AfD instead for clarity, G4 (if it's ever needed) and in case familiar attention is needed, not to mention this is also borderline speedy material. Questionably notable and improvable as searches simply found nothing better than this, this, this and this so unless he's locally notable and significant, there's not much convincingly better. Notifying author Babji Goud and past user and tagger Sitush. SwisterTwister talk 08:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animation-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete: The article has no WP:RS because it does not have significant coverage. Pixarh ( talk) 15:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep I have added WP:RS to article. Cartoonist is covered in depth in multiple independent reliable sources and meets WP:NOTEBLP. Pamarthy is also a well recognized artist who has achieved national and international recognition in his field. Unfortunately, the editor who created the original article was not well-versed in Wikipedia policy. There are more reliable sources out there, and the article could use more work. -- Bejnar ( talk) 19:31, 13 December 2015 (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  18:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply

List of guests on The Alan Titchmarsh Show (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

The list is trivial. Koala15 ( talk) 02:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep but restructure to List of The Alan Titchmarsh Show episodes like other talk shows. This was a show that ran for seven seasons in the UK (equivalent of 150 US TV years). —Мандичка ^YO 😜 07:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Not an encyclopaedic list. Szzuk ( talk) 19:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete Yet another daily talk show guest list with zero sources and no hope of finding any outside of the probably small Allan Titchmarsh Show obsessionist community. If you're in the media in Britain/ITV regular they've been on this show; no need for a list about this. Nate • ( chatter) 17:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete as WP:INDISCRIMINATE, no basis for the list is provided in the lead, fails WP:Stand alone lists. -- Bejnar ( talk) 04:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep and restructure per Wikimandia. Artw ( talk) 22:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply

User:Wikimandia is —Мандичка

@ Artw: On what Wikipedia guideline or policy is your recommendation based? Please see: WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. -- Bejnar ( talk) 16:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Bejnar: The guideline is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television. This list is in the wrong format. It should be restructured to follow the same format as other articles (see Category:Lists of variety television series episodes). —Мандичка ^YO 😜 17:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply

The policy is we don't keep articles in the hope someone will change them. They are kept or deleted based upon what they are right now, not what they could be. Szzuk ( talk) 20:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply

If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. - An avenue for page improvement has been suggested, I believe it is worth pursuing. Artw ( talk) 23:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Both keep votes in this afd effectively say this page isn't notable but a similar one with a different name using similar content would be. The correct procedure is userfy content, delete this page and recreate the new article when it is encyclopedic. Szzuk ( talk) 23:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply

The policy is we don't keep articles in the hope someone will change them. That is categorically untrue. The policy is WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. We don't delete articles because they're not good enough yet. —Мандичка ^YO 😜 01:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply

I will be clearer and add the relevant words in bold we don't keep articles in the hope someone will change them and make them notable. Szzuk ( talk) 08:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Hapoens all the time, and that's where "2nd nomination, users said they'd improve it but actually they didn't." comes in to play, should the article fail to improve. There's no rush here, and I'm not sure what emergency you think you are addressing. Artw ( talk) 15:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply

At the heart of every afd discussion is the notability of the subject. There is nothing in this article that demonstrates notability. Szzuk ( talk) 19:43, 16 December 2015 (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. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

Promotional lovefest for this individual who lacks coverage about him in independent reliable sources. Current bombardment of sources in this hagiography is mainly about others with passing mentions of him or quotes from him, not independent coverage of him. The one exception is from CBA National Magazine, the official periodical of the Canadian Bar Association, one trade rag is not enough. duffbeerforme ( talk) 07:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Absolutely agree. Certain editors seem bent on doing a huge promotional job for Tibbo. It is a stretch to suggest that Tibbo is anything more remarkable or noted than the average HR legal practitioner. The Snowden case is a prominent one but there is no shortage of those. An encyclopedic, factual article seems impossible in the face of the keenness of his acolytes, so deletion is very strongly supported by me. sirlanz( talk) 07:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• There's definitely a valid potential claim of notability here — but as far as I can see, the sourcing is very disproportionately dependent on simple namechecks of his existence in coverage of other topics (usually as a provider of soundbite), with not nearly enough sources that are substantively about him to satisfy WP:GNG at all. And there's a definite promotional/PR skew here, as the nominator correctly points out — it's not so blatant that it would have triggered my WP:CSD reflex, but it's definitely tilted in that direction. I give Sirlanz credit for the work he's done trying to tone it down, but he's entirely correct that there's just not enough meat on this bone to hold all the puffery. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if he ever becomes the subject of enough coverage (which, again, is not the same thing as getting quoted in articles about other things.) Bearcat ( talk) 04:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete At first the list of references looked impressive, so I checked about a quarter of them. I see where the other commenters are coming from and agree with their insights. ShelbyMarion ( talk) 22:55, 16 December 2015 (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 Withdrawn by nominator (self) -- samtar ^whisper 16:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

”Ioan Popescu” Pedagogical High School Barlad (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable school/educational organization. No references, very few found when searching. -- samtar ^whisper 12:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- samtar ^whisper 14:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- samtar ^whisper 14:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment - typically, I'd be all for deleting/redirecting articles on Romanian high schools below the rank of national college, but it looks as though this one may pass. You've got the local media sources ( [3], [4], [5], [6]), which, granted, are sometimes a bit dodgy; you've got the national press article ( [7]); but you also have a published study, Monografia Liceului Pedagogic Bârlad (Iași, 1970, authors: Mihai D. Mîță, Dumitru D. Mîță, Ștefan Cucoș). And a nice scholarly article (p. 13) in Academia Bârlădeană, the local literary/cultural magazine. So I'm fairly confident about this school being notable. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Eh, I've tried to help out cleaning up the article, there seems there could well be a notable stub in there somewhere -- samtar ^whisper 16:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Withdrawing nomination as it seems now other editors and myself have cleared away some of the fluff, and that Biruitorul did some (much better) reference sourcing, the article's topic passes muster.

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. Mark Arsten ( talk) 22:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

Claims no notability, fails WP:GNG. All sources are of NDTV, the media firm where she works. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 11:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 11:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 11:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete This was nominated in 2014 and since then there there has been no attempt to bring this article to compliance with WP:GNG or any specialized notability criteria. Wikipedia requires articles to meet some minimum standard. No notability criteria has been applied to this person and there are no sources cited to meet GNG. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 04:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete for (1) lack of independent sources (2) lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The passing mention here is the only independent sort. -- Bejnar ( talk) 04:52, 13 December 2015 (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. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Biology Fortified, Inc. (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Reads like an advertisement, lacks verifiable secondary sources, notability questionable. Semitransgenic _talk. 10:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. sst✈ ^(discuss) 11:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. sst✈ ^(discuss) 11:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete as I simply found nothing and I PRODed this as shown here. Draft and userfy if needed I suppose. Notifying past taggers Kvng, DGG and Fayenatic london. SwisterTwister talk 19:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. They look interesting, and it might conceivably be possible to write an article, but this is advertising. DGG ( talk ) 21:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete, not notable by the standard of WP:ORG. The external links are primary sources and press releases. – Fayenatic L ondon 23:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete, I agree that it fails the in depth coverage standard of WP:ORG. However, I ended up reading the article at SourceWatch, which was more balanced. The couple of in depth articles by GM-Watch don't amount to substantive coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, and have their own bias. The Forbes was just a mention in passing, and the Cato Institute video wasn't independent. The "Biology Fortified’s GMO Corn Experiment" caught the eye of someone at Popular Science but the article is slim at best. I am not sure what to do with the numerous mentions at Jon Entine's Genetic Literacy Project, whose bias is also obvious. -- Bejnar ( talk) 06:11, 13 December 2015 (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. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Sam Gibson Weddings (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Comprehensively fails WP:CORP. The two "awards" from Wedding Ideas magazine are neither awards (only a "finalist") nor remotely notable. The remaining references are either connected to the subject, wedding blogs, IMDB, or spurious, e.g. "Brown lauds Comic Relief 'heroes'". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. which has no mention whatsoever of the subject. I can find nothing better. Note also that Sam Gibson Weddings is a member of the 20Collective, an article by the Orangemoody paid editing sockfarm and deleted multiple times. See also the related Articles for deletion/York Place Studios and Articles for deletion/Neil Palmer Photography. Although the creators of these three articles are all allegedly different editors, they all have the same modus operandi, i.e. create the page first as a redirect and then return a week later to turn it into an article [8], [9], [10]. Voceditenore ( talk) 10:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore ( talk) 10:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore ( talk) 10:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore ( talk) 10:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete per voceditenore. 4meter4 ( talk) 17:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete, for the reasons given above. -- Hoary ( talk) 04:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete for lack of in-depth coverage in multipleindependent reliable sources. Fails WP:CORP. The lack of sources is such that the creator was reduced to citing a wedding blog and directory service for content, among other unreliable sources. I applaud Voceditenore for his work. -- Bejnar ( talk) 06:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Some coverage here and there, yes, but simply not enough for a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 22:10, 15 December 2015 (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). Sir Sputnik ( talk) 01:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply

The Europe Trust (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Article written in heavily negative tone per WP:NPOV, making possibly libellous allegations against a legally established organisation, with poorly-referenced allegations against living persons per WP:BLP. The newspaper articles supporting the allegations are all behind paywalls, and the two Times articles in the references carry prominent banners noting that they are the "subject of a legal complaint from The Europe Trust". Norvoid ( talk) 09:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Norvoid ( talk) 10:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Norvoid ( talk) 10:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Norvoid ( talk) 10:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep: Seems pretty decent coverage in news articles and books (not all on the page) of the notability of this organisation, if not the actual sections making allegations. JMWt ( talk) 12:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

User:JMWt: yes, I'm not disputing notability. But the article needs a complete re-write, as it's currently an attack article. Norvoid ( talk) 13:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

I think that's an argument for speedy keep - this is not the forum to highlight that a page needs dramatic improvement, but to discuss deletions. JMWt ( talk) 14:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

No, it's a borderline argument for speedy delete, for which many of the criteria apply to articles on subjects which are notable but need a complete re-write, for example, blatant spam about notable companies, blatant copyvio, etc. Unfortunately, none of the CSD criteria apply here, so my only option seemed to be to take it to AFD. Notability isn't the only reason for an AFD. Norvoid ( talk) 14:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Keep: Per JMWt. If it's notable, as the nominator admits, problems need to be corrected through editing, not deletion. If the nominator does not care to do that, s/he should just tag the problems s/he sees in the article and/or place edit requests on the article talk page and let someone else address them when and if someone gets around to it. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 20:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Keep - no valid deletion rationale provided. AfD is not to fix NPOV issues. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep - The proponent of deletion appears to be saying blow it up and start over, but it isn't obvious why it needs to be stubbed or blown up. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep the charity is notable. I see no reason for WP:TNT; the article is not written with a heavily negative tone. In fact, it is much more un-judgmental than many of the news stories. -- Bejnar ( talk) 07:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep - The subject of the article is discussed in several reliable publications and is therefore notable. Any deficiencies or lack of neutrality in the article should be dealt with by editing and not by deletion. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 13:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep'; WP:SNOWBALL, as per above. and WP:TROUT to Nom for inappropirate use of AFD. POV issues can be discussed on article's talk page. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Speedy keep as completely invalid reasons to nominate. WP:NPOV issues are fixed by editing, not deleting, and so are WP:BLP issues; sources being "behind paywalls" is not a problem (see also WP:OFFLINE, we don't discriminate on sources based on such things), and obviously the fact that a newspaper has received a legal threat has nothing to do with our article. LjL ( talk) 17:08, 15 December 2015 (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. Consensus is to keep (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^Talk 02:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

This young lady's name should be redirected to Miss Alabama USA according to WP:NOPAGE. She also won a teen contest, and is listed there already. Legacypac ( talk) 08:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep: Noting your point from earlier, I again draw your attention to the five newspaper articles, only two of the seven references are from one of the various pageants Ms. Brown was featured in. Good, reliable third-party sources covering all the information. This meets GNG. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

I'm not challenging notability~(though routine local coverage does not establish it), but suggesting we follow WP:NOPAGE. If you feel NOPAGE does not apply please address that issue. Thanks Legacypac ( talk) 08:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. sst✈ ^(discuss) 08:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. sst✈ ^(discuss) 08:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep. There is enough information for a stand-alone article and the subject meets gng. Jacona ( talk) 15:21, 10 December 2015 (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. Mark Arsten ( talk) 02:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply

G. George Addonizio (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Biography, sourced half to raw tables of election results and half to passing namechecks in news articles in which he was not the principal subject, of a person notable only as a smalltown municipal councillor and as a non-winning candidate for higher office. These are not claims of notability that get a person over WP:NPOL — municipal councillors get Wikipedia articles if they serve in major metropolitan global cities and/or can be sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG, and non-winning candidates for office get Wikipedia articles only if you can qualify them for Wikipedia articles on some other criterion completely independent of their candidacy. But neither of those has been shown here. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 20:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 20:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply

'Deleteper nom. Legacypac ( talk) 09:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete failed candidates for US house even if they have a major party nomination are not notable for that alone. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:54, 13 December 2015 (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 Tobu Railway. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^Talk 02:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

Famous Birthdays not RS, other than that, nothing Naraht ( talk) 19:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Tobu Railway, where it pointed until 2012. No evidence of significant news coverage for the musician. Tobu used to be a disambiguation page before it got hijacked a couple of months ago, but per Wp:TWODABS any confusion with Toubou people can be handled by a hatnote. 210.6.254.106 ( talk) 08:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Redirect I'm the original lister, no problem with changing to that redirect... Naraht ( talk) 14:30, 9 December 2015 (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. Mark Arsten ( talk) 02:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Paris Game Festival (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

No independent sources or evidence of notability; prod removed — Swpb ^talk 14:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Swpb ^talk 14:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Swpb ^talk 14:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply

'Deleteper nom. Legacypac ( talk) 09:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete for now as my searches simply found no better coverage to suggest a better notable article and simply looking at the history shows the consistency of activity this article has goten since starting, hardly much. SwisterTwister talk 22:45, 15 December 2015 (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. Mark Arsten ( talk) 02:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Somerset Park (Omaha, Nebraska) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

I'm not sure how this article has existed for seven years or more without a deletion discussion, but it is very clear to me that there is no evidence of notability here. An internet search turns up nothing of use—just Wikipedia mirrors, map sites, social media, and the like. Created by a WP:SPI (only made edits to this page) who actually blatantly states a WP:COI in the article: "Information provided by Rogers Construction, Omaha, Nebraska, park developers." Johanna ^{talk to me!} _{see my work} 04:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Legacypac ( talk) 09:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - I could find no significant coverage of this park by searching online. This site has eight photographs and shows that it's just a local patch of green space with some playground equipment, useful for the kids if you live nearby, but with nothing notable about it. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 14:04, 13 December 2015 (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. Mark Arsten ( talk) 02:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Guide to Life (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

I !vote delete, as this magazine does not meet WP:NMAG or WP:GNG. The current references do not lead anywhere, and archive.org doesn't have copies. Searches on Google, Google News, Google Newspaper Archive, JSTOR, Highbeam and the SCMP website did not turn up any substantive discussion of the magazine. /wia  /tlk 03:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply

'Delete nothing is nothing. Legacypac ( talk) 09:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete, per nom, the 3 references are especially bizarre leading to the same one page website which doesn't even discuss the magazine. Have been unable to find anything that makes it notable. Coolabahapple ( talk) 16:10, 14 December 2015 (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. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Hassan Zanjirani Farahani (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of notability per WP:MUSICBIO. References all mention him only in passing, with no significant coverage online from WP:Secondary, WP:Reliable sources. Article was speedy deleted once already. Norvoid ( talk) 17:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - a single trivial hit in News; nothing in Newspapers, Books, Highbeam or Scholars. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:55, 16 December 2015 (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. ( WP:NPASR). North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

Fails WP:COMPANY, WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:SPECULATION, and WP:NOTNEWS. Most of the sources mentioned in this article are either not reliable, only make small mentions, or do not mention the company at all and are only used for original research.-- Proud User ( talk) 03:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra ( talk) 08:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 28 November 2015 (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. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

I don't see notability here. Of the three refs , two relate to an acquisition by one company of another, and the other is an advertisement for its products. Not notability as required by WP:CORP   Velella   ^{Velella Talk}   00:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete for now as there's nothing here currently at all to fully convince better notability and improvement for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 16 December 2015 (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 Henry Cavendish (British Army officer). -- BDD ( talk) 15:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Henry Compton Cavendish (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Inappropriate DAB by Neelix, and these guys were brothers. Maybe turn into a redirect to the second brother if it has any use. Legacypac ( talk) 06:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete as inaccurate disambiguation. The names are not the same (nor do they contain the same exact wording); no disambiguation is needed. This is just some bizarre twist on Neelix's redirect compulsion. Softlavender ( talk) 06:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Henry Cavendish (British Army officer), which is the title of the 2nd one. Hatnote to similar name if needed, but I think it probably isn't. Boleyn ( talk) 11:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Redirect per Boleyn: it's plausible that Henry might be sought as "Henry Compton Cavendish", as the middle name could be part of a double surname. Unless we have any evidence that George was ever known as Henry, there's no need for a link to him. So redirect to Henry Cavendish (British Army officer). Pam D 14:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

It's not a compound surname - I checked that. Their father George Cavendish, 1st Earl of Burlington does not have Compton anywhere in his name. Legacypac ( talk) 14:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

But readers might or might now know that, if they find a reference to him using all 4 names and have to choose which ones to put into a search. Miss out the "Frederick" as obvious 2nd forename, but then guess whether "Compton" is surname or not. We might as well help those who guess wrong. Pam D 14:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

It's not a compound surname, but it follows the British upper class tradition of the time, a 'family name' as a second middle name. In this case, both listed are the result of a marriage between Miss Compton and Mr Cavendish. As both were established upper class families, both may well have been used at times, so definitely worth a redirect rather than deletion. Boleyn ( talk) 16:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Redirect, speedily per Boleyn. Widefox; talk 19:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Agree - and no chance they called the other brother by his middle name which was the same as his notable brother's first name. since we all agree, we can close this up anytime. Legacypac ( talk) 21:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply