Home • Search • Translate
Photos • Location

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 19 July 21 July >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ( WP:SNOW). North America 1000 04:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Trausti Sigurbjörnsson

Trausti Sigurbjörnsson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Unreferenced BLP. No reliable third party sources identifiable via Google News or Google Books. Fails WP:NSPORTS#Association football (not senior-level international, or professional) While the sourcing issues have been addressed for the most part, but the notability concerns remain. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 23:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 23:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kosack ( talk) 07:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick •  t •  c •  s 07:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick •  t •  c •  s 07:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Going to be bold here, even though I have contributed. Subject has met the subject specific guideline since the start of the AfD. No reason to keep this open for bureaucratic reasons as deletion rationale would no longer be appropriate were the article nominated today. Fenix down ( talk) 07:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Anid Travančić

Anid Travančić (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 23:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 23:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

*Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 08:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Do come back here and post if he does, I'll be happy to change my vote. Fenix down ( talk) 17:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The game was postponed so he didn't play and therefore still fails WP:NFOOTY. - Yellow Dingo  (talk) 02:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC) reply
I agree. Match has been postponed till 30 July 2016 due to severe flooding in Novi Pazar, Serbia, however the league has started in other part of country. If consensus is reached to delete the article then I will recommend this article to be userified so that the original creator may get another chance to recreate it later (ofcourse if subject passes on WP:NFOOTY). Hitro talk 09:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply
It is a fully professional as per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues#Men.27s_leagues. Hitro talk 22:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Yes it is fully Professional but he has not yet made his debut for Novi Pazar in the Serbian SuperLiga .Last game against Vojvodina was postponed but may play today's game against Javor Ivanjica. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 20:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD ( talk) 15:55, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Falgun Rathod

Falgun Rathod (  | 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:NBIO. Sources are weaker than they first appear:

  • The Hacker News doesn't appear reliable. (Not to be confused with Hacker News, although The Hacker News's favicon is obviously derivative, which is... sketchy.)
  • Silicon India also doesn't appear reliable, and the mention is just a listicle.
  • Pentest looks borderline to me, and may accept user submitted content. Regardless, the specific claim that he was the first Indian on the cover couldn't be verified.
  • The India Today source is reliable, but it provides no specific information about Rathod at all. It lists him as one of several "famous personalities" in a profile of ethical hacking as an "offbeat career".

Grayfell ( talk) 23:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete and I had actually speedied this in April but it was removed with absolutely no explanations which is typical; examining this simply found nothing convincingly better at all. I frankly would've even PRODed sooner myself but I was not interested if it was simply going to be removed also....at least we have G4 now for the future. SwisterTwister talk 23:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
That's why I went with the AFD. From the editing history it seemed like a prod was just delaying the inevitable. Grayfell ( talk) 02:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Kick (association football). (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 13:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Volley (football)

Volley (football) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a WP:MANUAL or WP:GUIDE. All this article does is act as both. Prisencolin ( talk) 21:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Just leaving this here. Vítor ( talk) 22:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Well, bicycle kicks are quite a bit more famous than the volley.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 22:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Pfft... Push and run, Kick (association football)... Category:Association football tactics and skills. Vítor ( talk) 22:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. —  Jkudlick •  t •  c •  s 01:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as WP:A7 and WP:G11 by Ohnoitsjamie. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Apollo Soft

Apollo Soft (  | 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 created by blocked sock User:Davewhelan Theroadislong ( talk) 21:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete' as regardless of who started this article, examining this has still found nothing minimally convincing at all to suggest this would've even been convincingly notable to begin with. SwisterTwister talk 00:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete by BethNaught. Salted by Mkdw. ( non-admin closure) NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 21:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Bidsketch

Bidsketch (  | 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 created by blocked sock User:Cong.thang44 Theroadislong ( talk) 21:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete and this is nearly tickles at being speedy material, but not quite enough to tag; regardless, examining this still has found nothing at all close to convincing independent notability, nothing at all convincing frankly. SwisterTwister talk 00:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. promotional article , by soock, probable paid editing in violation of the trems of use DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Webgility

Webgility (  | 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 and created by blocked sock User:User:Davewhelan Theroadislong ( talk) 21:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted by BethNaught. (non-admin closure) shoy ( reactions) 14:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Ossic

Ossic (  | 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 created by blocked sock User:Saraerani Theroadislong ( talk) 21:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete' and I frankly consider this speedy material as nothing here is at all close to being convincing and it's not surprising the article focuses with simply its funding, none of which would be convincing. SwisterTwister talk 00:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Zlatan Ibrahimović. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 13:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Religious Views of Zlatan Ibrahimović

Religious Views of Zlatan Ibrahimović (  | 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 think it is of encyclopedic interest to know a footballer's religious views. Its content could be integrated into the main article. What's next, an article about Arjen Robben's favourite food? OscarL 21:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Merge a tiny bit of information to Zlatan Ibrahimović. Too much speculative or irrelevant material. The detail is really excessive, but I have nothing against a brief mention of his body art in the "personal life" section. So we could reduce that to a sentence and merge. GAB gab 00:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Regardless of our personal opinions, the fact is that Ibrahimović's religious views are obviously deemed enough of a matter of public interest for CNN to ask him about them. The phrase "Ibrahimović religion" averages 1,900 searches every single month in Google (by contrast, "Robben favourite food" averages zero). Additionally, as he winds down his career, the non-footballing aspects of his life are only going to become more prominent. Montedia ( talk) 10:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Ibrahimovic is among the most notable footballers of the past two decades so the off-shoot articles seem worthwhile. Doubly so since I sem to recall his religion being discussed quite a few times. 88.104.38.32 ( talk) 13:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude ( talk) 20:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick •  t •  c •  s 20:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick •  t •  c •  s 20:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick •  t •  c •  s 20:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick •  t •  c •  s 20:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Octet Ensemble

Octet Ensemble (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN musical group. No assertion of notability, only released one album. The album may be notable, but it doesn't appear that way at present. MSJapan ( talk) 20:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Discussion about other related WP:WALLEDGARDEN articles and COI (recommend !voters to read it)
  • Comment: "Plan"
See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard § Susman / Sommacal
Originally I had said, at the William Susman AfD, that I didn't think Belarca Records would be viable as stand-alone article, however, this may be sufficient independent reliable sources on their CDs for such article:
So the article could be somewhat like this: its lead section about the label's founder and the Naxos distribution;
Also the formerly deleted Francesco Di Fiore may redirect here
Other titles can be made into redirects to this section too.
(sorry for the unusual presentation of this plan: I created this reply on a separate page in my userspace in order to post it as a template on several AfDs concurrently) -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • The problem with this, if I have understood you correctly, is that Belarca Records is not a notable label and currently redirects to William Susman, who at least has a marginal notability. It is basically no different than a self-published book. It has very few recordings, and all of them including or devoted to Susman's work. And note that it is marketed through Naxos Direct, which, as has been pointed out. is no different to Amazon or CDBaby. It is not a sub-label of Naxos Records. Finally, small labels like this draw their notability from the notability of the artists and ensembles who record for them. If none of them are independently notable, then neither is the label. In my view, this is not helpful. The decision should be made on each of the artist/ensemble articles separately. This kind of transclusion of a sub-discussion also causes a potential mess in AfDs. Voceditenore ( talk) 09:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • "Restart" - In an effort to address the issue without getting mired in the subst above, Octet Ensemble, if it is to be kept, needs to meet WP:NMUSIC on its own. The fact that Susman is involved is irrelevant, as one possibly notable person does not make the group notable. The fact that it's on Susman's label is irrelevant, because the label can't be notable because of Susman. We have here a group that has released one album on an indie label, did nothing for three years previous, and has done nothing since. The fact that the guy who started the group also owns the label doesn't matter, except to maybe make a case against notability. MSJapan ( talk) 18:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
That's fine, but it's the 4 million unrelated articles in here that are making the thread hard to manage. The individual AfDs just aren't the right place to do the "overarching plan" sort of thing. MSJapan ( talk) 05:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Yep, and you seem to have messed up the links from the bands and musicians delsort page, which now are circular links back to the delsort page. Whatever it is you did please don't do it anymore. I'll try and fix those links. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was to keep the article. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ( talk) 05:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply

William Susman

William Susman (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A longtime composer, but cannot find independent sources to meet WP:COMPOSER or WP:NMUSIC. There's no notable composition, he doesn't write for theatre, and he doesn't meet any of the other four criteria either, nor is there any basis to claim the "Other" five are met either. On the WP:NMUSIC front, he releases everything on his own indie label, so there's no separability there. I can't source his airplay on radio to any more than the single programs listed. The majority of the references that were cited were namedrops or didn't actually mention Susman at all. The awards he received I can't find information for, so there's no way to determine if even the ASCAP awards mean anything. MSJapan ( talk) 20:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment: in addition, the article seems to be copied word by word from his website, copyright violation. If not deleted, it needs a rewrite. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep, - assuming he is notable (AllMusic, Naxos, links in our film articles, American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP), I cut a lot of the flowery language, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Delete – neither William Susman, nor his Belarca label, nor any of the artists performing for that label can be found on the www.naxos.com webite (Naxos does list recordings of labels such as Capriccio which they distribute). All five Belarca CDs are distributed through NaxosDirect ( naxosdirect.com/labels/belarca-4365), which is an online shop. As far as WP:GNG goes that is as trivial as being available on Amazon... There simply aren't enough independent non-trivial reliable sources for this composer. His name is mentioned in the Native New Yorker (film) article, and that's about as far as Wikipedia can go imho. ASCAP also is as trivial as trivial goes if no independent reliable description (as opposed to mere mentioning) can be found that describes this as meaningful for this artist. I tried hard to find out whether it would be possible to keep Belarca Records (currently a redirect to the William Susman article) as an article that would group the information on this composer and the related (groups of) artists and recordings with AfD notices, but it simply doesn't seem feasible under Wikipedia's current notability standards. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 12:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Changed to "Keep" per Voceditenore below. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 04:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard § Susman / Sommacal
Originally I had said, at the William Susman AfD, that I didn't think Belarca Records would be viable as stand-alone article, however, this may be sufficient independent reliable sources on their CDs for such article:
So the article could be somewhat like this: its lead section about the label's founder and the Naxos distribution;
Also the formerly deleted Francesco Di Fiore may redirect here
Other titles can be made into redirects to this section too.
(sorry for the unusual presentation of this plan: I created this reply on a separate page in my userspace in order to post it as a now substituted template on several AfDs concurrently) -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • The problem with this, if I have understood you correctly, is that Belarca Records is not a notable label and currently redirects to William Susman, who at least has a marginal notability. It is basically no different than a self-published book. It has very few recordings, and all of them including or devoted to Susman's work. And note that it is marketed through Naxos Direct, which, as has been pointed out. is no different to Amazon or CDBaby. It is not a sub-label of Naxos Records. Finally, small labels like this draw their notability from the notability of the artists and ensembles who record for them. If none of them are independently notable, then neither is the label. In my view, this is not helpful. The decision should be made on each of the artist/ensemble articles separately. This kind of transclusion of a sub-discussion also causes a potential mess in AfDs. Voceditenore ( talk) 09:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
This should still not be an editable subsection, in my view, but I agree that keeping the discussion in one place is a good idea, although I really think this proposal to redirect all the articles to a non-notable record label is very misguided. Voceditenore ( talk) 09:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
As I see it a non-redirect Belarca Records would need to pass WP:GNG and/or Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). There's nothing misguided about trying to find out whether that would be possible. "If none of [the artists] are independently notable, then neither is the label" seems far more misguided, and not a notability standard as applied anywhere on Wikipedia. Belarca Records passes WP:GNG or it doesn't. Whether the required multiple independent non-trivial reliable sources are on its founder, its artists, its releases, or whatever else that highlights the company, does not make a difference. Compare List of cantatas by Christoph Graupner: maybe none of the cantatas listed there would pass WP:GNG for a separate article, but that doesn't prevent Wikipedia from having an article that treats a group of topics with possibly insufficient "notability" in their own right. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 10:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment
I agree but think I found enough independent mentioning of the composer, now assembled in External links, to also keep him.
There's a decent bio from 1987, and his name comes up at recent film festivals. Some of them could become references. If he is not "notable", something is wrong with our criteria. - I heard his name yesterday for the first time, so feel without conflict of interest. I tried to make the article more concise and neutral, - help wanted. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Well, the above are mainly "trivial"-type links (trivial in the WP:GNG meaning of not giving substantial independent coverage, e.g. the Fromm link is a mere listing void of prose text, interviews don't add up to WP:GNG, others, like the short bio, don't seem independent of the (education) institutions with which the composer has a connection,...) – The CD reviews are most tangible as independent reliable souces, if they pass a minimum standard of professionality (which needs to be looked in to) – as these reviews are not independent of each other in William Susman's case (all on the same website, www.acousticmusic.com) they leave too little ground for an independent article. So I think the "Belarca Records" article solution best to get started with, with all the others as redirects. This also avoids deletion of article history, making it possible to revive independent articles once they would get enough body in sources that add up in the WP:GNG logic.
For clarity: most of the above links can't be kept in the "External links" section of this article anyhow, per WP:EL. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 09:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
I have reformatted this. Please don't add editable subsections to AfD discussions. Voceditenore ( talk) 09:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
I substituted the content of User talk:Francis Schonken/Belarca above in order not to confuse discussions. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 09:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Gerda Arendt has two contributions to this debate starting with a bolded !vote-word, can this be reformatted without giving the illusion of a double !vote? Tx! -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 09:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Gerda, I am not impressed with the current external links. 1. is the subject's own website. 2. Is a self-published website with reader contributed reviews. 3. simply attests to a commission from the Fromm Foundation. 4. is a paid press-release which states quite clearly at the top "McKenzie News Service can help increase attendance to your events. Details" It mentions "a breathtaking original score by William Susman" but this is not is not an independent review at all. It is an advert. 5. and 6. are duplicates of each other and are from a program at the U of M music school where the contents are supplied by the performer. It is not an independent review or evaluation of the work being performed or of the composer. 7. is a press release written by Susman for the film. 8. simply lists Susman as one of the five composers of this film's score. 9. is a brief article in a student magazine at Athabasca University. I'm holding off !voting at the moment, but as far as I can see, the only marginally notable award is the first ASCAP one, which he did win (it's for composers under 30). The second ASCAP one is basically an undergraduate grant. The films are not particularly notable. Most are very short, and the article on Native New Yorker (film) (a film lasting 13 minutes) was created by one of the editors who has created and/or extensively edited all the articles in this suite. The commission from the Fromm Foundation at Harvard is a plus. The AllMusic bio ditto. This is different from a simple listing of the CD and they're written independently. Some of Susman's music appears to have been played on two or three specialist radio stations. I can find no evidence of premieres or concerts featuring it in major venues or performed by notable ensembles/musicians, or even reviews of these premieres. This is a very niche genre so a certain amount of slack can be granted, but the question is how much. I'll see if I can find more coverage of his work and report back. Voceditenore ( talk) 10:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Meets COMPOSER criteria 2 multiple times if one includes movies and shorts. Won numerous musical prizes, not well-known ones, but its hard to ignore that many, including film festival awards not in his biography. Has score composer credits for eighteen films. Likely meets, or comes very close to meeting the GNG from the sources on his page.  The Steve  10:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Passes WP:MUSICBIO criterion 12. There was a two-hour program devoted to Susman and his work in 2003 on Concertzender, at the time part of the Dutch Public Broadcasting System). Note also that it is now a private station devoted to classical music and seems to regularly broadcast his work (10 times in 2016 [3]). Voceditenore ( talk) 11:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. per this discussion — Spaceman Spiff 08:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Lance Everett Wyatt

Lance Everett Wyatt (  | 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 created by blocked sock User:Sunilseth15 Theroadislong ( talk) 19:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD ( talk) 15:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Anna Christina Radziwill

Anna Christina Radziwill (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Anna Christina Radziwill, daughter of Caroline Lee Bouvier Radziwill, who is the sister of First Lady Jacqueline Bouvier "Jackie" Kenney Onassis, is not independently notable for her own article on Wikipedia. WP:GNG has not been met. There is no Significant coverage coverage of the subject that speaks of her directly and in detail. If you do a quick Google search, you will find that Anna Christina Radziwill is only mentioned in passing with her notable mother Caroline Bouvier Radziwill and other notable family members. She is only mentioned in passing in reliable sources, such as here. ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 19:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Delete for lack of notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Fate of the Lhapa (soundtrack)

Fate of the Lhapa (soundtrack) (  | 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:NALBUMS. AllMusic is not a source for notability, and no one else has reviewed it. It has not won a major award, gotten any substantial coverage, etc., and it really doesn't need to be redirected - we don't have an article on the documentary. MSJapan ( talk) 19:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Discussion about other related WP:WALLEDGARDEN articles and COI (recommend !voters to read it)
  • Comment: "Plan"
See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard § Susman / Sommacal
Originally I had said, at the William Susman AfD, that I didn't think Belarca Records would be viable as stand-alone article, however, this may be sufficient independent reliable sources on their CDs for such article:
So the article could be somewhat like this: its lead section about the label's founder and the Naxos distribution;
Also the formerly deleted Francesco Di Fiore may redirect here
Other titles can be made into redirects to this section too.
(sorry for the unusual presentation of this plan: I created this reply on a separate page in my userspace in order to post it as a template on several AfDs concurrently) -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • The problem with this, if I have understood you correctly, is that Belarca Records is not a notable label and currently redirects to William Susman, who at least has a marginal notability. It is basically no different than a self-published book. It has very few recordings, and all of them including or devoted to Susman's work. And note that it is marketed through Naxos Direct, which, as has been pointed out. is no different to Amazon or CDBaby. It is not a sub-label of Naxos Records. Finally, small labels like this draw their notability from the notability of the artists and ensembles who record for them. If none of them are independently notable, then neither is the label. In my view, this is not helpful. The decision should be made on each of the artist/ensemble articles separately. This kind of transclusion of a sub-discussion also causes a potential mess in AfDs. Voceditenore ( talk) 09:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 02:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 02:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Islam in The Heart of The People

Islam in The Heart of The People (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Aside from the terrible writing -- which is a fixable issue -- I can no find reliable sources indicating this film meets WP:NFILM in any way, shape or form. (Also rather surprised by the somewhat dubious claim that former Turkish minister Abdülkadir Aksu wrote the film.) Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The only hits I got with Google are ~1min youtube videos (<100 views), wikipages, facebook (with only a handful of likes) and imdb with a synopsis that looks copied straight from a wikipage (double square brackets etc). No coverage in reliable sources whatsoever, so clearly fails GNG. I would even consider WP:A11 speedy deletion. - HyperGaruda ( talk) 04:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete only 7 G-matches and, as stated above, these are eerily similar (Creator has 6 live edits and 15 deleted ones - maybe an admin could check these?) - Arjayay ( talk) 13:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • It looks like the IMDb page was copied from the prior version the now-blocked editor has written, given that they use brackets and that it was written after the prior Wikipedia page was created. It's not a copyvio candidate, although it is decidedly non-notable. This looks to be the latest attempt by the editor to add himself (four prior attempts) and his film (one prior attempt) to Wikipedia, so I've given him an indef for self-promotion and disruptive editing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Opinions are split between either keep or merge/redirect. While several opinions are quite weak, there are valid arguments on both sides, and whether somebody transcends BLP1E is a matter of editorial judgment. The article therefore stays by default ... for now.  Sandstein  16:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Meredith McIver

Meredith McIver (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason GoldenSHK ( talk) 18:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC) Seems like this lady is an unknown ghost writer (by definition they're not supposed to be known anyway) and she happens to be trending right now due to Melania Trump's "speechgate" controversy. What are the chances she'll do anything notable again after this week or if this trending issue really is of longstanding importance? reply

Update: eight days later, I think I could support redirect to an article just on the speech controversy, but unfortunately that's been merged for the time being and is getting short shrift. I think the speech controversy is something people will want to look up in future years.-- Milowent • has spoken 12:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Milowent: Agreed, but I don't think editors will see value in the article unless/until it is fully expanded. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 14:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy redirect for BLP reasons. It can always be turned back into an article later. For now, there are serious risks of this just being a coatrack of criticism. I always tend to think that people read BLP1E too strictly, since the third criterion disqualifies a lot of BLPs that might otherwise meet the criteria. However, while the third criterion may be met in the current news cycle, it's unclear if it will remain so in the future. My guess is it actually will remain notable, and as the event and McIver's role are both covered more, that third criterion will ultimately be met. But for now, I think we ought to err on the side of caution. There's a much greater risk for harm in keeping this article than in provisionally redirecting it. —  PinkAmpers & (Je vous invite à me parler) 19:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy redirect for BLP reasons. Completely agree with the above. I just didn't know that was the exact rule that I needed to reference. Thanks PinkAmpersand. 100% same thought. Should be redirected to the Melania Trump Speech Contreversy which funny enough even has a "Main article" tag on McIver's article. GoldenSHK ( talk) 19:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Melania Trump speech plagiarism controversy (assuming that article doesn't also get deleted) sounds like a good idea to me. Funcrunch ( talk) 19:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect as a plausible search term, but a BLP1E case. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 20:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Melania Trump speech plagiarism controversy. The most significant coverage I could find about her prior to the current event was this: [4]. While somewhat entertaining, it is not significant coverage about her, and her role in the current event is both WP:BLP1E and WP:ONEEVENT at this time. 24.151.10.165 ( talk) 20:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Change to Keep. A reliable source [5] has now connected her to two independent incidences, separated by a number of years, where she has been identified by the Trump Organization as the author of damaging mistakes. In combination with some preexisting coverage regarding her ghostwriting role on Trump's books this bio now satisfies WP:GNG and no longer fails WP:BLP1E in my estimation. 24.151.10.165 ( talk) 21:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I don't think full deletion should be an option. McIver's name appears on my television screen as I write this sentence. People are and will be turning to Wikipedia for information. If people are searching for her by name, they should be directed to something. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 21:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I'm kinda 50/50 on the BLP1E thing but notability is certainly there and given a chance overtime the article will improve, If it doesn't renominate it and we'll all scream BLP1E like banshees . – Davey2010 Talk 20:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It's not strictly BLP1E because of the coverage of her as a Trump assistant and ghostwriter, credited as co-author of his 2005 book, and writtnen up as such in The NYTimes, the Guardian and other papers back in 2005/ 2007.(links on page) It's more like an actress who has a speaking role in a blockbuster movie, once, then, 10 years later, has a speaking role in a second blockbuster movie. In that role she plays maybe the private secretary, but in that role she has this one famous line. So we keep her. Becase people years form know will stumble on that moment and want to know who she is. Also WP:RAPID. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. vanity page for nn Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Gurpal singh oppal

Gurpal singh oppal (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See WP:Junk; Autobiography Ethanlu121 ( talk) 18:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC) reply

The Dumping Ground Future Characters

The Dumping Ground Future Characters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A "future characters" article isn't useful because it will be empty most of the time and, once the series is over, forever. Future characters can be listed in a "future characters" section of an existing article on the series or on the characters of the series. Largoplazo ( talk) 17:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 17:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Redirecting is useless because no one's going to search for "The Dumping Ground Future Characters", "The Dumping Ground Characters" yes but the former no!, I've merged the content in to the characters article so there's no need for this article. – Davey2010 Talk 20:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Great, thanks, Davey2010. Now, I think we can delete, as it makes more sense to have a single "characters" article, rather than a "characters" article, a "past characters" article, and a "future characters" article. GAB gab 23:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. After three relists and a lack of discussion, consensus cannot be determined. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 13:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Witold Szczypiński

Witold Szczypiński (  | 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 coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. This is essentially a CV based on primary sources (press releases, etc.). There are three news sources, two are very court and essentially press releases as well about the subjected becoming a CEO; the third is a bit better - an interview about his family (mostly his father) in a more reliable newspapaper ( [10]). Still, it is not really about him. Overall, I do not see what makes the subjected notable enough to be in an encyclopedia. The article is part of a series about a certain Polish company created by an otherwise WP:SPA; the company may be notable - but it's CEO does not seem to be. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 12:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply

This article is similar to the one in Polish Wikipedia : https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witold_Szczypi%C5%84ski — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kowal kowal ( talk • contribs) 08:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks for noting that. I've added interwiki links and stated the AfD on pl wiki at pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/biografie/2016:07:06:Witold Szczypiński. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 19:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 19:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 17:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 talk 17:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 17:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Kongu Riders Cricket Club

Kongu Riders Cricket Club (  | 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 being a minor club only the article would seem to be breaching terms of WP:GNG. It is also seeming to be not in compliance with WP:NCRIC and WP:CRIN. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 13:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 17:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Non-notable minor club. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep Wikipedia is for providing information to people about the history of the club regardless of being a Non-notable minor club or a popular one. All related references & citations were given in the page appropriately. All guidelines were met while creating the page. It is properly updated on a weekly basis and more importantly not clustered. It is not a newly started group as noted by other editors, only the page has been created recently to update all the information for viewing. Ashok4u2cool ( talk) 13:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC) reply
— Note to closing admin: Ashok4u2cool ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. )

References

  1. ^ http://www.velsarena.com/2014/04/cdca-league-entry-knock-out-tournament-at-snr-on-12-04-2014/
  2. ^ http://www.velsarena.com/2015/04/coimbatore-knock-out-matches-on-18-04-2015/
  3. ^ http://www.velsarena.com/2016/04/coimbatore-knock-news-25-04-2016/
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 17:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Seriously, this massively fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Wikipedia is not a directory for local non-notable clubs. Please show me in-depth coverage of this club in reliable newspapers like The Hindu/Times of India/Hindustan Times. Till that time, I am going with delete. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 07:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep References for publication in reliable newspaper in "The Hindu" about the match article as requested [1] Also listed in one of the cricket teams in India by "Times of India" in their website [2]

References

  1. ^ http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-sports/double-for-vijay-kunal/article8521442.ece
  2. ^ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topiclist/Cricket-teams-in-India

103.59.185.242 ( talk) 08:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: 103.59.185.242 ( talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.) 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. czar 09:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Simon Thornton

Simon Thornton (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only a single self penned reference . PROD removed. No evidence of any notability . Fails WP:GNG   Velella   Velella Talk   23:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 11:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 11:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 11:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 02:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 talk 17:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 17:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. After three relists and a lack of discussion, consensus cannot be determined. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 13:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Transformers: Dark of the Moon (toy line)

Transformers: Dark of the Moon (toy line) (  | 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 is a list of toys with nothing to establish notability for the toy line itself. TTN ( talk) 23:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 11:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 04:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 02:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 talk 17:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 17:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. After three relists and a lack of discussion, consensus cannot be determined. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 13:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Pawtoberfest

Pawtoberfest (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local event organised by non-notable local organisation, and written up in local media. Does not appear to pass WP:GNG. Pam D 22:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 11:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 11:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 02:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment to the above comment by 57Watt - it would require two or three good sources dealing substantially with the subject published in independent books, articles, or newspapers of presumed reliability. Carrite ( talk) 02:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 talk 17:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 17:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Mhhossein ( talk) 05:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Golden Films

Golden Films (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My own searches have simply found expected passing mentions but no actual substantial coverage, there's no inherited notability from their clients and I have found nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 21:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 11:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 01:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 01:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 02:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per meeting WP:CORP and improve this sad stub article about a company which has won multiple industry awards (yes, some minor), [12] [13] as diligent searches find the accompanying media coverage due to those awards. [14] [15] [16] [17] Tone and sourcing of an arguably notable topic is a matter for editorial attention, not deletion. As with similar articles, it is expected that sources would write about the product of a production/distribution company. Per guideline: "'A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." My emboldening as WP:SUBSTANTIAL is not a requirement of WP:SIGCOV (intentional redlink to underscore that it is not a mandate). Multiple sources are available. Time to address issues. Schmidt, Michael Q. 04:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 talk 17:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 17:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. After three relists and a lack of discussion, consensus cannot be determined. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 13:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Analytical Graphics

Analytical Graphics (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My own searches have simply found unacceptable sources overall, advertorial contents, press releases and other unhelpful links. My examinations here have found nothing actually convincing for any applicable notability, there's certainly not inherited notability from having Space Foundation certification. I'll note I frankly nearly tagged as speedy or PROD. SwisterTwister talk 21:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Hi, first time poster just signed up to plea with you not to delete this article. The advertising you cite is likely for products that are free such as STK and Cesium. Also worth noting the page has been in existence for at least eight years. Please to inform me what sources are inadequate or missing and I will be more than happy to improve the article. Astronika ( talk) 02:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Astronika ( talk • contribs) 02:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Astronika: we need to see significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. See WP:GOLDENRULE. ~ Kvng ( talk) 18:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 02:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 talk 17:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 17:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Multiple offices and a significant web footprint. Meets GNG, I believe, see, for example THIS coverage in the book The Future of Business: The Essentials, by Lawrence Gitman and Carl McDaniel. Carrite ( talk) 01:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Zee Entertainment Enterprises. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 01:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Zee Nung

Zee Nung (  | 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 shows no evidence of notability, and is untouched in terms of actual content since its original upload, save for the tags added by myself and User:Edward321. The article is also very poorly written, and it seems like it was simply pasted from Google Translate. GammaRadiator ( talk) 20:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 11:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 11:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Maybe so, but it appears to be from an affiliate member of the ZEE group. Therefore, it is self advertising and is ineligable as a source. GammaRadiator ( talk) 00:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
I guess you mean the articles read like advertorials? They aren't noted as such, though. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 07:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
No. Source 1 (ZEE News) has only a passing reference to ZEE Nung, instead focusing on ZEE Sine, a ZEE franchise in the Phillipines whereas Nung broadcasts in Thailand. The second source links to another unrelated article discussing one of ZEE Living's (NOT ZEE Nung) presenters being nominated for an Emmy. Because both articles are unrelated to ZEE Nung itself, there are no apparent sources and it therefore fails to meet GNGs. GammaRadiator ( talk) 12:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Oh. I thought you were referring to the Bangkok Post and The Nation articles I gave above. My comment wasn't referring to any of the refs currently used in the article. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 16:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 02:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 talk 17:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 17:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Zee Entertainment Enterprises I found an article to show that it "exists". But there is no significant coverage about the channel itself (also it fails WP:CORPDEPTH by a huge margin). More importantly, I found that the channel doesn't have its own original programming but is simply replaying popular Indian programmes owned by the network's other popular channels like Zee TV. Since it doesn't have its own programming, I would say redirect it to the parent organisation per WP:NMEDIA -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 05:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
That seems sensible. Either way, Nung is definitely not worthy of its own article. GammaRadiator ( talk) 20:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. After three relists and a lack of discussion, consensus cannot be determined. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 13:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Wildfire (Fahrenhaidt song)

Wildfire (Fahrenhaidt song) (  | 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:NSONG. Mentions of the song are in passing on articles about either Fahrenhaidt or Emmelie de Forest. PGWG ( talk) 17:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 11:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 02:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 talk 17:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 17:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD ( talk) 15:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Savarapu Vijaya Kumar

Savarapu Vijaya Kumar (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Middle-ranking government official and writer with no indication of notability per WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. He's written some books on Indian government regulations of no apparent notability per WP:NBOOK, and the claims of multiple government awards are both unreferenced and of unknown notability. I can find no significant coverage of him online in WP:Reliable sources, just author credits for his written works. OnionRing ( talk) 13:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. OnionRing ( talk) 13:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. OnionRing ( talk) 13:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. OnionRing ( talk) 13:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete. fails WPBIO, No RS Uncletomwood ( talk) 08:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 02:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist — Music1201 talk 17:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 17:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR .None of his books are notable and fail WP:NBOOK.Non notable Government official. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 03:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus. After three relists and a lack of discussion, consensus cannot be determined. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 13:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Divyen Raithatha (Producer)

Divyen Raithatha (Producer) (  | 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:GNG & relies mostly on self-published sources. for (;;) (talk) 12:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. for (;;) (talk) 12:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. for (;;) (talk) 12:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. for (;;) (talk) 12:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 02:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist — Music1201 talk 17:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 17:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Planting Peace. Opinions are split between merge and delete. The compromise is to redirect and let editorial consensus determine what, if anything, should be merged from the history.  Sandstein  16:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Billboard of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz

Billboard of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz (  | 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 is about one billboard, which received coverage from a few sources on the day it went up. (In addition to the sources listed in the article, I found it also got reported by the SF Chronicle and by "NBC Out".) I could find no coverage in the week since then, and no indication it had any impact on the convention, or on the national discussion of the issues involved. I believe it should be deleted, as too trivial for inclusion here. But if people favor a merge, it should be to Planting Peace, the organization that put it up, rather than to 2016 Republican National Convention, on which it had no effect. MelanieN ( talk) 17:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Sources
Another Believer, I would certainly encourage you to expand the article if possible. However, I would note that of the sources you list, EVERY ONE of them appeared on July 14, nothing since; and only a few are what would be considered mainstream sources (as opposed to things like www.liberalamerica.com and www.usuncut.com). Also, they pretty much all say the same thing: what the billboard shows, who put it up, and why. If you can find additional material so as to expand the article, or if it receives further Reliable Source commentary or followup, I could be persuaded to withdraw my nomination. -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Just an FYI: I've added some additional sources to the above list and to the article. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 18:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Pharos: Would the short-lived Trump-Pence logo be included in that article as well? 0;-D -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Why not? It's a phase in political art history, much like the 2008 campaign, which surely deserves its own article too. For context, I'm a bit of a campaign paraphernalia junkie, I wrote Tippecanoe and Tyler Too a few years ago.-- Pharos ( talk) 21:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
It is already mentioned there with what seems to me to be about the right amount, just needs the references added. Thoughtmonkey ( talk) 19:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 05:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Nico's Last Concert: Fata Morgana

Nico's Last Concert: Fata Morgana (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Outside of a mention in The Rolling Stone Album Guide, this does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 ( talk) 00:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Merge Non-notable album by a notable artist per WP:NALBUM. Merge with artist space.

1. …has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works…: Not demonstrated 2. …has appeared…national music chart: Not demonstrated 3. …has been certified gold or higher...: Not demonstrated 4. …nominated for a major music award…: Not demonstrated 5. …in rotation nationally by a major...: Not demonstrated 6. …subject…substantial broadcast…national radio or TV network…: Not demonstrated Nikto wha? 02:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 02:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 16:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 10:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Sebastian Brown

AfDs for this article:
Sebastian 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)

Article's subject does not meet the criteria WP:MUS. Brownsc ( talk) 02:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: Repaired malformed nomination on behalf of another user. However, I'm expressing no formal opinion on the article's merits — as the original nominator the first time, I will say that I still don't see any substantive evidence that WP:NMUSIC has actually been met at all, but (a) my participation was canvassed, (b) there's some circumstantial evidence (username + prior edits — actually predating the existence of this article — to the same high school the topic attended) that the nominator may actually be the article subject himself, and (c) I'm not really all that interested in actually re-engaging with this, and so I'm staying out of it apart from fixing the discussion formatting. Bearcat ( talk) 21:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 21:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 21:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 02:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Update: I note that this has still had no participation after two relists, and may be in danger of closing as no consensus. However, I wanted to point out that Brownsc, the original nominator, did confirm in a post to my talk page that he is the subject himself. Accordingly, under the circumstances I'm now recommending that this be deleted per WP:BIODEL, as an article about a low-profile individual who has personally requested deletion. Bearcat ( talk) 15:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD ( talk) 15:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Camp Lahti

Camp Lahti (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Camp with no evidence of importance. I can't see why the A7 was declined. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 17:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 17:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (Borderline) G11 plus agreement here. BethNaught ( talk) 10:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC) reply

KiranKumar

KiranKumar (  | 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 business-man. References show that he has been given an award from a minor Deemed to be University and that he has given an interview to a local paper. Fails WP:GNG   Velella   Velella Talk   08:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 10:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply

2015–16 F.C. Halifax Town season

AfDs for this article:
2015–16 F.C. Halifax Town season (  | 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 season is about a team not playing in a WP:FPL. We have long-standing consensus at AFD that only teams in fully professional leagues get season articles per WP:NSEASONS. All those refs look good; but they are all WP:ROUTINE coverage with many transfer announcements and the like. Yellow Dingo  (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 15:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  16:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply

188BET

188BET (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No coverage in reliable sources, so fails WP:COMPANY. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 20:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 17:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 15:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was unmerge articles and redirect to disambig. czar 05:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC) reply

El Ain, Lebanon

El Ain, Lebanon (  | 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 page has existed for quite a while now but it has never been sourced. Doesn't assert significance and the only Google hits are weather forecasts. Eventhorizon51 ( talk) 19:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 17:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 17:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 15:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 05:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Kelly anthony

Kelly anthony (  | 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 unsourced, otherwise fails WP:GNG. A Google search only provides either unrelated sources, unreliable sources, or Anthony's social media accounts. JudgeRM 18:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 15:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MER-C 12:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Yin Xiaoyuan

Yin Xiaoyuan (  | 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 poet, self-promotional article. Fails WP:BIO JMHamo ( talk) 23:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

  • I have added her name in Chinese so you could google it and find out yourself she is absolutely notable!Most of the interviews and news on her are in Chinese, but it is not difficult to translate them with software.
I have also added 15+ evidents (most of them from official websites of academic societies) on her notability, please refer to them. Baikespwiki ( talk) 01:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC) reply

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

  • Comment Since the bulk of the article consisted of reproduction of her (translated, I assume) poetry, I've put a copyvio mask on top of all of it and expect that some revision deletion will be done. Largoplazo ( talk) 21:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The problem is that the article is confused gibberish. For example, claiming "Iki of Bashō, Wabi of Muramasa①" as an English translation is obviously bogus. And since nothing in the article corresponds to any indication of notability, it may as well be deleted, since the usable content is empty. Imaginatorium ( talk) 09:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC) reply
(Followup comment) I have also so far found zero (0) references which are actually obviously third-party. The text claims "Her works in Chinese, English, Japanese, German and French...", but there is no evidence in English, Japanese, German, or French of these, and in fact this seems to mean more writing in Chinese, notionally being translations of something or other. Imaginatorium ( talk) 16:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 15:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 00:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Nicolas Kun de Kozma

Nicolas Kun de Kozma (  | 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 appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. Except for the first reference (a negative review), the references are primary sources showing that de Kozma has written a number of books, and that these are in libraries. But there is no evidence of notability. WP:AUTHOR calls for one of the following criteria to be met:

  1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
  2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
  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.
  4. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

Simply having written a large number of books is not enough. Furthermore, the facts of de Kozma's life have no verifying references at all. "Former professor" could mean an adjunct who taught a single course. ubiquity ( talk) 13:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ubiquity ( talk) 13:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ubiquity ( talk) 13:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. After completing a full review of all of the previous AFD closes, I think it is safe to say this is the first true deletion discussion to transpire thus far for this article. The only AFD in which anything remotely akin to a full discussion occurred was from just a month before I joined this site, nearly a decade ago. And, our policies have changed drastically since then. But, even so, some of the same concerns being brought up now had been presented at that time.

The initial and lasting concern has been that there are no sources providing the requisite evidence of notability; this concern is not misplaced. As at no point, in nearly ten years, have sources been presented to properly establish notability. Simply put: passing mentions, trivial coverage, and brief summaries do not qualify as significant coverage; the topic must be covered directly and in detail. Furthermore, the sources must be independent; primary sources cannot establish notability. However, the sources shown thus far do not appear to fulfill these requirements. After nearly ten years, that is disappointing.

In closing, the arguments presented for the deletion of this article are found to be backed by policy, specifically: WP:WEB, WP:N, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:RS. The arguments for retention, without the existence of any policy backed evidence to support their request, held no weight in the consideration of this close. Therefore, the subject of this article is found to lack the required notability for inclusion on this site. (Note: This close is held with prejudice against any recreation of this article, until the sourcing and notability issues are properly addressed.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Railpage Australia

AfDs for this article:
Railpage Australia (  | 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 know, I know. It's the ninth nomination and the article is listed at Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. Hear me out. Of the eight previous nominations, only the second was a full discussion. The first was withdrawn after a perfunctory discussion, while numbers 3–8 (listed at right) were thrown out for various procedural reasons. The site was at the center of a major conduct dispute, both on- and off-wiki, which culminated in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Railpage Australia. There hasn't been a true discussion about the notability of this topic since 2007.

I don't think the site meets our notability guidelines and I don't think the article establishes a claim to notability. While the lede claims that the site has been "quoted as a source in major state and national newspapers, as well as in government and private research publications", this amounts to a few links to the site sprinkled in to documents produced in the mid-2000s. None of these are about the site itself. Most of the information about the site is self-referenced, which cannot be used to establish notability. Most of the Google Scholar citations are false positives because of the similarity between "Railpage" and "Rail, page." In any event, citation of a source does not make that source notable. One source that does discuss the site in brief, by Roger Clarke, is apparently sourced to a userspace draft on Wikipedia itself. While the Parliament of Australia did include a link to Railpage in 2007 (see [21] and [22]), it does not do so any longer and the inclusion of a bare link without context does not, in my view, help establish a site's notability. What we're missing here is any kind of commentary or discussion about the site itself independent of the site.

In addition, the article had major COI issues from its inception. It was started by Bevans@omni.com.au ( talk · contribs), probably the site's owner (or someone claiming to be him), and was heavily-edited by Dbromage ( talk · contribs), apparently a major figure in the site's history. This wouldn't pass muster with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest today and it was shaky even in 2006–2007. Dbromage has since been banned for sockpuppetry in an unrelated matter.

Leaving aside all the problems with tone and self-sourced context, this topic fails WP:WEB. It probably failed WP:WEB in 2007 (and there were those who thought so) but standards were looser then and a truly disruptive conduct dispute clouded the issue. Thanks for reading this far, Mackensen (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 20:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 20:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 20:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 20:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy close  WP:BEFORE C3 states, "If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page..."  Looking at the talk page shows that this nominator has not engaged in discussion on the talk page of the article in an attempt to resolve his or her concerns, just as for this same reason there is no support on the talk page for an AfD.  Unscintillating ( talk) 13:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
    • That's not how AfD works; if you have a substantive comment this would be a good time to make it. Mackensen (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
      • Given that you want to discuss this, why did you not initiate discussion on the talk page?  What about WP:BEFORE C4?  Unscintillating ( talk) 16:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
        • Feel free to suggest a merge target and content which you think could be merged. Mackensen (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
          • Those are content issues.  As per WP:DEL, "The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page..."  Also from WP:DEL, "Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page..." which I would also support in addition to, or in conjunction with, a speedy close.  Regards, Unscintillating ( talk) 17:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
            • You're the one who raised C4, which talks about merges. I didn't talk about merges because I don't think the topic is notable. Quoting chapter-and-verse from WP:BEFORE doesn't change the fact that it's advisory, at best. Mackensen (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
              • WP:BEFORE begins, "Prior to nominating article(s) for deletion, please be sure to..."  The editnotice refers every editor who posts at AfD to this text.  Whether or not you think it is advisory, the community has politely asked to you do this.  Unscintillating ( talk) 18:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
              • As for asserting that merges are not relevant, WP:N is not a deletion policy...the deletion policy is WP:DEL8, and is a higher requirement than WP:Notability.  WP:BEFORE A1 tells us, "Read and understand these policies and guidelines...1. The Wikipedia deletion policy, which explains valid grounds for deletion as well as alternatives to deletion and the various deletion processes"  See also the essay WP:INSIGNIFICANCE.  Unscintillating ( talk) 18:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
                • I'm sorry, but these comments are nonsensical. I never said merges were irrelevant; I simply didn't propose one because I thought there was nothing to merge. Articles which fail to meet the relevant notability guideline may absolutely be deleted, as the very policy you quoted says: "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)." I assert this article fails WP:WEB. Says so right in the nomination. Again, I invite your views on whether this article satisfies WP:WEB. Mackensen (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion is relisted following discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 July 17.  Sandstein  12:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  12:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: TL;DR version of nomination: this is, at most, the third actual nomination and the first in nine years. The site fails WP:WEB. Mackensen (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, but preserve somewhere. This is a valuable piece of internet lore and should be preserved somewhere. Maybe http://www.railroad.net/ would be a good home? But (at least in its current form), it's not an encyclopedia article, and I'd be surprised if we could find the kind of WP:RS we need to make it one. There's a ton of references, but I don't see any which meet our needs. I looked at the first eight or so, and none of those were even close to what we want. Possibly there are better sources further down the list, but I'm not going to slog through the whole list of 42 (none with titles that stand out and grab me as being likely candidates) to see if there are any. It would be useful for this discussion if somebody could find the 2 or 3 best ones and list them here for easy review. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - without a doubt, fails WP:WEB. I hope we can finally kill this article, despite the fact it has had 9 unsuccessful nominations. There is a statement in the lead section that I would like to share: "It has been quoted as a source in major state and national newspapers, as well as in government and private research publications."[ 1] There is not a single source by this bold statement. I struggle to think of any rationale that warrants a "keep". -- ProgrammingGeek ( Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 14:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Um, no, it isn't. I did quite a lot of searching and found only passing references in some Australian broadcasters' websites. That's not coverage. ProgrammingGeek ( Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 08:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • How can something pass (or fail) a guideline "based on policy"? And which WP:WEB are you reading which says none of that stuff as actual criteria, but does give two actual criteria. "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself..." and "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization" - do you have either of those? -- 82.14.37.32 ( talk) 08:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC) reply
"When evaluating the notability of web content, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." - Considered. Passed. Also, "These criteria are presented as rules of thumb...". I am not using the specified rules of thumb, but other indicators of significance.  The Steve  14:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Fails WP:NWEB. There are claims to notability, but it doesn't seem anybody, myself included, has been able to find anything approachin sufficient coverage on which to base an article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and Move to railpage.com.au, primary name I first thought that this might be the most elaborate hoax of all time, a website from 1994 having no sources seems impossible. I could find two third party sources on Railpage Australia, here Book extract read on National Radio, How to Plan Your Dream Vacation Using the Web. The second give signficant coverage, still borderline GNG. However if you search under the current title "railpage.com.au" you get many sources citing the webpage Daily Mail, Transport, the Environment and Security: Making the Connection, [26], etc. Valoem talk contrib 19:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC) reply
    These were discussed above; none of them are about the site. Did you find any sources which discuss the site in any depth? Mackensen (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:WEB, only sourcing appears to be brief mentions, nothing in-depth and reliable about the site itself. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 08:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the subject simply doesn't pass WP:WEB, which allows two routes to demonstrating notability: the GNG route of significant coverage in third party reliable sources, or winning well known awards (which isn't claimed here). The third-party sources which are held up as evidence of notability boil down to places which mention, reference, quote or link to Railpage Australia. Actual coverage of the site in such sources is extremely slim. Aside from these we are left with numerous citations to the site itself (which isn't independent) and automated pages such as traffic stats or domain registration (which are virtually worthless). It does look like a determined effort has been made to present this as a notable topic, but there's very little to back that up. Hut 8.5 21:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. I suggest waiting more than five days after the last AfD to start the next one. Also see WP:BEFORE. ( non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 23:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Jacob_Sartorius

AfDs for this article:
Jacob_Sartorius (  | 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 internet personality. Seems like self promotion more than anything, also no significant references present.

One of the references cited is a tweet - ""Jacob Sartorius on Twitter: "I'll be joining @MAGCONTOUR as a special guest! #MAGCONTalent 😊"". Twitter. January 20, 2016. Retrieved July 7, 2016." /info/en/?search=Jacob_Sartorius#cite_ref-3

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. JohnCD ( talk) 16:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Asia–Pacific Football Academy

Asia–Pacific Football Academy (  | 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 contested, no reason given. No evidence of notability, no significant coverage required by WP:GNG, only one source which is WP:ROUTINE. Giant Snowman 07:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 07:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Eric Hafner

Eric Hafner (  | 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 politician with very few reliable sources provided. Tinton5 ( talk) 06:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • DELETE: Sources confirm that he is a candidate, and 2 sources outline his positions. NOTE I've requested input here about the extent to which those position declaration interviews count towards GNG, as we're likely to see many similar in the next few months. Crow Caw 14:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Since all candidates in any given election get offered those kinds of interviews or surveys to articulate their positions on the election issues, those don't assist in conferring notability as such. Bearcat ( talk) 21:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Hafner is a candidate for a nomination. If he wins the election he will be notable, until then he is not. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Candidates in primaries do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason before becoming a candidate, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to become notable enough for a Wikipedia article on the basis of the election itself. But nothing here demonstrates that at all — the sourcing is purely WP:ROUTINE election coverage of the type that all candidates always get. Bearcat ( talk) 21:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was snow keep. The previous AfD closed as "keep" last week, why not improve the article instead of starting deletion debates you won't win? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Tiffany Trump

AfDs for this article:
Tiffany Trump (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of any independent notability. The daughter of a far-right politician, but notability is not inherited. Tataral ( talk) 06:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note that I wasn't aware of previous deletion discussions, but I still think it's clear that a young student who happens to be the daughter of a candidate for a political office should absolutely not have a biographical article, and at best only a redirect to her father's biography. -- Tataral ( talk) 06:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Look at readers' interest in the article (in the last 20 days). On average, some 5,000 to 10,000 readers have tried to get information about Tiffany Trump. On 19 July, the number topped 200,000. If interest is that high, information should not be denied to the reader. In other words, the article should not be deleted. -- Lektor w ( talk) 06:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Interest is nice, but not the only reason to keep a page; Wikipedia pages exist because the subject is notable, not popular. 331dot ( talk) 08:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I think the fact she spoke at the Convention means there are probably enough RS to permit a page on her, and if she makes campaign appearances there will be further sources. I have also read that Donald Trump's kids are influential in his campaign so we may see sources on that as well. 331dot ( talk) 08:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
I would add it has only been two weeks since the previous AfD and the reasons don't seem to have changed much. 331dot ( talk) 08:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy procedural Keep and shame on Nom for this disruptive AFD, the previosu AFD closed as KEEP on 13 July. Appropriately as per: WP:INHERIT which explicitly states that: "Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG." This girl is "known solely for" being the famous daughter of a famous man. She's famous for being famous. Since her dad got nominated for President, she's even more famous. Do I see a point to all this publicity? No, but that's me, I would also like to vote the Karsashians off the island. But I do recognize that - like the Kardashians - Tiffany is famous for being famous. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 09:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The nominator is correct in saying that notability is not inherited; however, we cannot dismiss any coverage Tiffany Trump receives, on the grounds that she is Donald Trump's daughter. A fair number of the sources examine her as an individual, such as this, or this, or this. She meets GNG, in my view. Additionally, while I acknowledge that popularity and notability are not the same, it does rub me the wrong way to delete a page that has received 300,000 views (!) in the month of July alone. Finally, she is a speaker at the Republican National Convention; and while she is unlikely to have been there but for her father, the fact remains that she is a speaker at one of the two largest political events in the country. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 10:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Michig ( talk) 07:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Louie Ignacio

Louie Ignacio (  | 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 director. The one reference that was on the page didn't mention him at all. I can't find any significant coverage of him with a Google search. Appears to be a vanity page that lists a bunch of unverifiable credits. LAroboGuy ( talk) 22:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Broad (200+ results), if shallow, coverage of him pops up on google news. The articles aren't about HIM, as opposed to being about his work, or about an actor within his work, but the aggregate breadth seems sufficient to establish notability for me. Fieari ( talk) 00:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Forgive me if I'm ignorant of the requirements, because this is my first deletion nomination, but I used WP:DIRECTOR as a guideline before I submitted. There's four possibilities for notability there, and I don't believe he meets any of them: (1) He is not regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. (2) he did not originate a significant new concept, theory, or technique. (3) He did not play a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work that was the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. (4) His work has not won significant critical attention, which is the only part of (4) that would be relevant. I didn't know that being briefly mentioned in 200+ Google results is an indication of notability in any Wikipedia notability guidelines. I could be wrong, so that's why I'm asking for feedback on this. LAroboGuy ( talk) 03:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Gotcha, thanks. I did notice the phrase ""Significant coverage" gets a lot of emphasis on both of those pages. I don't think this subject has received "Significant coverage" in any sources, reliable or otherwise. LAroboGuy ( talk) 17:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Draft instead as, yes, there are sources, but still not to the levels of convincing notability, the article is still actually questionable because of this, and I'm not seeing anything else to suggest substantially convincing. It's best therefore Drafted and improved if needed. SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist Yellow Dingo  (talk) 05:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo  (talk) 05:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW NeilN talk to me 07:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Burhan Muzaffar Wani

Burhan Muzaffar Wani (  | 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:SINGLEEVENT and WP:BLP1E.

Should be redirected here - 2016 Kashmir unrest.

John Jaffar Janardan ( talk) 04:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete this article on this guy since he doesn't deserve publicity, empathy or even any reference in history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.246.49.58 ( talk) 12:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

As i assume and clearly looks that nominator deletion reason is completely based on his personal dislikeness.

So please end this discussion and state the verdict. Nauriya ( Rendezvous) 22:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: Mention may be made that the article has [as of this writing] interwiki links to corresponding entries in the Hindi Wikipedia, the Eastern Punjabi Wikipedia and the Urdu Wikipedia. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 03:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 06:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 06:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 06:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There is no doubts that this article's topic is not the matter in question here. It fulfills all of Wikipedia's requirements for notability. Rather than using the threat of deletion to move it toward a specific agenda, those concerned with it should engage in honest discussions, and if needed, third opinion and arbitration. Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 07:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Deleted. Hoax based on content from Rahat Indori. Creator blocked as a suspected sock. utcursch | talk 22:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Shiv Parashar

Shiv Parashar (  | 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, indirect copyright violation; dishonest attempt by creator to modify Rahat Indori to fit the subject. Compare the above article mentioned with Special:Permalink/730110940, where the creator removed the G12 afterwards and basically removed some parts and added some fake information. Probably should be speedily deleted on an IAR basis for the dishonest copying by creator. — Esquivalience ( talk) 03:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  16:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Relapse refill

Relapse refill (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See WP:Junk Ethanlu121 ( talk) 02:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Ethanlu121 ( talk) 14:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

JSDC India

JSDC India (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advertisement, unremarkable organization. Ethanlu121 ( talk) 02:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia ( talk) 09:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia ( talk) 09:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. WP:SNOW NeilN talk to me 03:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

2016 WWE draft

2016 WWE draft (  | 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 event Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 02:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Sam Williams (curler)

Sam Williams (curler) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

probable AUTOBIO as created by User of same name. Highest level is junior Asia Pacific not world championships is not enough to satisfy WP:ATHLETE LibStar ( talk) 13:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect: whereas everybody agrees that notability has been not demonstrated at the moment, there is an obvious target for a redirect, which is always preferable to deletion.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Erik Drost

Erik Drost (  | 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:GNG. Searches come up with no evidence of notability. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Procedural close (nac) The page in question has already been deleted under WP:CSD#G3. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 05:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Healthcare and Aging

Healthcare and Aging (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See WP:NOTESSAY Ethanlu121 ( talk) 00:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Jake Thompson (born 1989)

Jake Thompson (born 1989) (  | 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:NBASEBALL and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 00:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 18:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_July_20&oldid=732819143"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 19 July 21 July >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ( WP:SNOW). North America 1000 04:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Trausti Sigurbjörnsson

Trausti Sigurbjörnsson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Unreferenced BLP. No reliable third party sources identifiable via Google News or Google Books. Fails WP:NSPORTS#Association football (not senior-level international, or professional) While the sourcing issues have been addressed for the most part, but the notability concerns remain. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 23:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 23:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kosack ( talk) 07:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick •  t •  c •  s 07:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick •  t •  c •  s 07:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Going to be bold here, even though I have contributed. Subject has met the subject specific guideline since the start of the AfD. No reason to keep this open for bureaucratic reasons as deletion rationale would no longer be appropriate were the article nominated today. Fenix down ( talk) 07:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Anid Travančić

Anid Travančić (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 23:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 23:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

*Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 08:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Do come back here and post if he does, I'll be happy to change my vote. Fenix down ( talk) 17:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The game was postponed so he didn't play and therefore still fails WP:NFOOTY. - Yellow Dingo  (talk) 02:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC) reply
I agree. Match has been postponed till 30 July 2016 due to severe flooding in Novi Pazar, Serbia, however the league has started in other part of country. If consensus is reached to delete the article then I will recommend this article to be userified so that the original creator may get another chance to recreate it later (ofcourse if subject passes on WP:NFOOTY). Hitro talk 09:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply
It is a fully professional as per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues#Men.27s_leagues. Hitro talk 22:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Yes it is fully Professional but he has not yet made his debut for Novi Pazar in the Serbian SuperLiga .Last game against Vojvodina was postponed but may play today's game against Javor Ivanjica. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 20:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD ( talk) 15:55, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Falgun Rathod

Falgun Rathod (  | 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:NBIO. Sources are weaker than they first appear:

  • The Hacker News doesn't appear reliable. (Not to be confused with Hacker News, although The Hacker News's favicon is obviously derivative, which is... sketchy.)
  • Silicon India also doesn't appear reliable, and the mention is just a listicle.
  • Pentest looks borderline to me, and may accept user submitted content. Regardless, the specific claim that he was the first Indian on the cover couldn't be verified.
  • The India Today source is reliable, but it provides no specific information about Rathod at all. It lists him as one of several "famous personalities" in a profile of ethical hacking as an "offbeat career".

Grayfell ( talk) 23:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete and I had actually speedied this in April but it was removed with absolutely no explanations which is typical; examining this simply found nothing convincingly better at all. I frankly would've even PRODed sooner myself but I was not interested if it was simply going to be removed also....at least we have G4 now for the future. SwisterTwister talk 23:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
That's why I went with the AFD. From the editing history it seemed like a prod was just delaying the inevitable. Grayfell ( talk) 02:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Kick (association football). (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 13:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Volley (football)

Volley (football) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a WP:MANUAL or WP:GUIDE. All this article does is act as both. Prisencolin ( talk) 21:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Just leaving this here. Vítor ( talk) 22:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Well, bicycle kicks are quite a bit more famous than the volley.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 22:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Pfft... Push and run, Kick (association football)... Category:Association football tactics and skills. Vítor ( talk) 22:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. —  Jkudlick •  t •  c •  s 01:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as WP:A7 and WP:G11 by Ohnoitsjamie. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Apollo Soft

Apollo Soft (  | 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 created by blocked sock User:Davewhelan Theroadislong ( talk) 21:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete' as regardless of who started this article, examining this has still found nothing minimally convincing at all to suggest this would've even been convincingly notable to begin with. SwisterTwister talk 00:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete by BethNaught. Salted by Mkdw. ( non-admin closure) NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 21:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Bidsketch

Bidsketch (  | 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 created by blocked sock User:Cong.thang44 Theroadislong ( talk) 21:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete and this is nearly tickles at being speedy material, but not quite enough to tag; regardless, examining this still has found nothing at all close to convincing independent notability, nothing at all convincing frankly. SwisterTwister talk 00:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. promotional article , by soock, probable paid editing in violation of the trems of use DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Webgility

Webgility (  | 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 and created by blocked sock User:User:Davewhelan Theroadislong ( talk) 21:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted by BethNaught. (non-admin closure) shoy ( reactions) 14:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Ossic

Ossic (  | 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 created by blocked sock User:Saraerani Theroadislong ( talk) 21:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete' and I frankly consider this speedy material as nothing here is at all close to being convincing and it's not surprising the article focuses with simply its funding, none of which would be convincing. SwisterTwister talk 00:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Zlatan Ibrahimović. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 13:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Religious Views of Zlatan Ibrahimović

Religious Views of Zlatan Ibrahimović (  | 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 think it is of encyclopedic interest to know a footballer's religious views. Its content could be integrated into the main article. What's next, an article about Arjen Robben's favourite food? OscarL 21:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Merge a tiny bit of information to Zlatan Ibrahimović. Too much speculative or irrelevant material. The detail is really excessive, but I have nothing against a brief mention of his body art in the "personal life" section. So we could reduce that to a sentence and merge. GAB gab 00:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Regardless of our personal opinions, the fact is that Ibrahimović's religious views are obviously deemed enough of a matter of public interest for CNN to ask him about them. The phrase "Ibrahimović religion" averages 1,900 searches every single month in Google (by contrast, "Robben favourite food" averages zero). Additionally, as he winds down his career, the non-footballing aspects of his life are only going to become more prominent. Montedia ( talk) 10:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Ibrahimovic is among the most notable footballers of the past two decades so the off-shoot articles seem worthwhile. Doubly so since I sem to recall his religion being discussed quite a few times. 88.104.38.32 ( talk) 13:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude ( talk) 20:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick •  t •  c •  s 20:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick •  t •  c •  s 20:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick •  t •  c •  s 20:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick •  t •  c •  s 20:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Octet Ensemble

Octet Ensemble (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN musical group. No assertion of notability, only released one album. The album may be notable, but it doesn't appear that way at present. MSJapan ( talk) 20:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Discussion about other related WP:WALLEDGARDEN articles and COI (recommend !voters to read it)
  • Comment: "Plan"
See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard § Susman / Sommacal
Originally I had said, at the William Susman AfD, that I didn't think Belarca Records would be viable as stand-alone article, however, this may be sufficient independent reliable sources on their CDs for such article:
So the article could be somewhat like this: its lead section about the label's founder and the Naxos distribution;
Also the formerly deleted Francesco Di Fiore may redirect here
Other titles can be made into redirects to this section too.
(sorry for the unusual presentation of this plan: I created this reply on a separate page in my userspace in order to post it as a template on several AfDs concurrently) -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • The problem with this, if I have understood you correctly, is that Belarca Records is not a notable label and currently redirects to William Susman, who at least has a marginal notability. It is basically no different than a self-published book. It has very few recordings, and all of them including or devoted to Susman's work. And note that it is marketed through Naxos Direct, which, as has been pointed out. is no different to Amazon or CDBaby. It is not a sub-label of Naxos Records. Finally, small labels like this draw their notability from the notability of the artists and ensembles who record for them. If none of them are independently notable, then neither is the label. In my view, this is not helpful. The decision should be made on each of the artist/ensemble articles separately. This kind of transclusion of a sub-discussion also causes a potential mess in AfDs. Voceditenore ( talk) 09:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • "Restart" - In an effort to address the issue without getting mired in the subst above, Octet Ensemble, if it is to be kept, needs to meet WP:NMUSIC on its own. The fact that Susman is involved is irrelevant, as one possibly notable person does not make the group notable. The fact that it's on Susman's label is irrelevant, because the label can't be notable because of Susman. We have here a group that has released one album on an indie label, did nothing for three years previous, and has done nothing since. The fact that the guy who started the group also owns the label doesn't matter, except to maybe make a case against notability. MSJapan ( talk) 18:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
That's fine, but it's the 4 million unrelated articles in here that are making the thread hard to manage. The individual AfDs just aren't the right place to do the "overarching plan" sort of thing. MSJapan ( talk) 05:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Yep, and you seem to have messed up the links from the bands and musicians delsort page, which now are circular links back to the delsort page. Whatever it is you did please don't do it anymore. I'll try and fix those links. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was to keep the article. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ( talk) 05:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply

William Susman

William Susman (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A longtime composer, but cannot find independent sources to meet WP:COMPOSER or WP:NMUSIC. There's no notable composition, he doesn't write for theatre, and he doesn't meet any of the other four criteria either, nor is there any basis to claim the "Other" five are met either. On the WP:NMUSIC front, he releases everything on his own indie label, so there's no separability there. I can't source his airplay on radio to any more than the single programs listed. The majority of the references that were cited were namedrops or didn't actually mention Susman at all. The awards he received I can't find information for, so there's no way to determine if even the ASCAP awards mean anything. MSJapan ( talk) 20:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment: in addition, the article seems to be copied word by word from his website, copyright violation. If not deleted, it needs a rewrite. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep, - assuming he is notable (AllMusic, Naxos, links in our film articles, American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP), I cut a lot of the flowery language, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Delete – neither William Susman, nor his Belarca label, nor any of the artists performing for that label can be found on the www.naxos.com webite (Naxos does list recordings of labels such as Capriccio which they distribute). All five Belarca CDs are distributed through NaxosDirect ( naxosdirect.com/labels/belarca-4365), which is an online shop. As far as WP:GNG goes that is as trivial as being available on Amazon... There simply aren't enough independent non-trivial reliable sources for this composer. His name is mentioned in the Native New Yorker (film) article, and that's about as far as Wikipedia can go imho. ASCAP also is as trivial as trivial goes if no independent reliable description (as opposed to mere mentioning) can be found that describes this as meaningful for this artist. I tried hard to find out whether it would be possible to keep Belarca Records (currently a redirect to the William Susman article) as an article that would group the information on this composer and the related (groups of) artists and recordings with AfD notices, but it simply doesn't seem feasible under Wikipedia's current notability standards. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 12:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Changed to "Keep" per Voceditenore below. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 04:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard § Susman / Sommacal
Originally I had said, at the William Susman AfD, that I didn't think Belarca Records would be viable as stand-alone article, however, this may be sufficient independent reliable sources on their CDs for such article:
So the article could be somewhat like this: its lead section about the label's founder and the Naxos distribution;
Also the formerly deleted Francesco Di Fiore may redirect here
Other titles can be made into redirects to this section too.
(sorry for the unusual presentation of this plan: I created this reply on a separate page in my userspace in order to post it as a now substituted template on several AfDs concurrently) -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • The problem with this, if I have understood you correctly, is that Belarca Records is not a notable label and currently redirects to William Susman, who at least has a marginal notability. It is basically no different than a self-published book. It has very few recordings, and all of them including or devoted to Susman's work. And note that it is marketed through Naxos Direct, which, as has been pointed out. is no different to Amazon or CDBaby. It is not a sub-label of Naxos Records. Finally, small labels like this draw their notability from the notability of the artists and ensembles who record for them. If none of them are independently notable, then neither is the label. In my view, this is not helpful. The decision should be made on each of the artist/ensemble articles separately. This kind of transclusion of a sub-discussion also causes a potential mess in AfDs. Voceditenore ( talk) 09:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
This should still not be an editable subsection, in my view, but I agree that keeping the discussion in one place is a good idea, although I really think this proposal to redirect all the articles to a non-notable record label is very misguided. Voceditenore ( talk) 09:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
As I see it a non-redirect Belarca Records would need to pass WP:GNG and/or Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). There's nothing misguided about trying to find out whether that would be possible. "If none of [the artists] are independently notable, then neither is the label" seems far more misguided, and not a notability standard as applied anywhere on Wikipedia. Belarca Records passes WP:GNG or it doesn't. Whether the required multiple independent non-trivial reliable sources are on its founder, its artists, its releases, or whatever else that highlights the company, does not make a difference. Compare List of cantatas by Christoph Graupner: maybe none of the cantatas listed there would pass WP:GNG for a separate article, but that doesn't prevent Wikipedia from having an article that treats a group of topics with possibly insufficient "notability" in their own right. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 10:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment
I agree but think I found enough independent mentioning of the composer, now assembled in External links, to also keep him.
There's a decent bio from 1987, and his name comes up at recent film festivals. Some of them could become references. If he is not "notable", something is wrong with our criteria. - I heard his name yesterday for the first time, so feel without conflict of interest. I tried to make the article more concise and neutral, - help wanted. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Well, the above are mainly "trivial"-type links (trivial in the WP:GNG meaning of not giving substantial independent coverage, e.g. the Fromm link is a mere listing void of prose text, interviews don't add up to WP:GNG, others, like the short bio, don't seem independent of the (education) institutions with which the composer has a connection,...) – The CD reviews are most tangible as independent reliable souces, if they pass a minimum standard of professionality (which needs to be looked in to) – as these reviews are not independent of each other in William Susman's case (all on the same website, www.acousticmusic.com) they leave too little ground for an independent article. So I think the "Belarca Records" article solution best to get started with, with all the others as redirects. This also avoids deletion of article history, making it possible to revive independent articles once they would get enough body in sources that add up in the WP:GNG logic.
For clarity: most of the above links can't be kept in the "External links" section of this article anyhow, per WP:EL. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 09:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
I have reformatted this. Please don't add editable subsections to AfD discussions. Voceditenore ( talk) 09:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
I substituted the content of User talk:Francis Schonken/Belarca above in order not to confuse discussions. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 09:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Gerda Arendt has two contributions to this debate starting with a bolded !vote-word, can this be reformatted without giving the illusion of a double !vote? Tx! -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 09:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Gerda, I am not impressed with the current external links. 1. is the subject's own website. 2. Is a self-published website with reader contributed reviews. 3. simply attests to a commission from the Fromm Foundation. 4. is a paid press-release which states quite clearly at the top "McKenzie News Service can help increase attendance to your events. Details" It mentions "a breathtaking original score by William Susman" but this is not is not an independent review at all. It is an advert. 5. and 6. are duplicates of each other and are from a program at the U of M music school where the contents are supplied by the performer. It is not an independent review or evaluation of the work being performed or of the composer. 7. is a press release written by Susman for the film. 8. simply lists Susman as one of the five composers of this film's score. 9. is a brief article in a student magazine at Athabasca University. I'm holding off !voting at the moment, but as far as I can see, the only marginally notable award is the first ASCAP one, which he did win (it's for composers under 30). The second ASCAP one is basically an undergraduate grant. The films are not particularly notable. Most are very short, and the article on Native New Yorker (film) (a film lasting 13 minutes) was created by one of the editors who has created and/or extensively edited all the articles in this suite. The commission from the Fromm Foundation at Harvard is a plus. The AllMusic bio ditto. This is different from a simple listing of the CD and they're written independently. Some of Susman's music appears to have been played on two or three specialist radio stations. I can find no evidence of premieres or concerts featuring it in major venues or performed by notable ensembles/musicians, or even reviews of these premieres. This is a very niche genre so a certain amount of slack can be granted, but the question is how much. I'll see if I can find more coverage of his work and report back. Voceditenore ( talk) 10:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Meets COMPOSER criteria 2 multiple times if one includes movies and shorts. Won numerous musical prizes, not well-known ones, but its hard to ignore that many, including film festival awards not in his biography. Has score composer credits for eighteen films. Likely meets, or comes very close to meeting the GNG from the sources on his page.  The Steve  10:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Passes WP:MUSICBIO criterion 12. There was a two-hour program devoted to Susman and his work in 2003 on Concertzender, at the time part of the Dutch Public Broadcasting System). Note also that it is now a private station devoted to classical music and seems to regularly broadcast his work (10 times in 2016 [3]). Voceditenore ( talk) 11:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. per this discussion — Spaceman Spiff 08:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Lance Everett Wyatt

Lance Everett Wyatt (  | 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 created by blocked sock User:Sunilseth15 Theroadislong ( talk) 19:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD ( talk) 15:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Anna Christina Radziwill

Anna Christina Radziwill (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Anna Christina Radziwill, daughter of Caroline Lee Bouvier Radziwill, who is the sister of First Lady Jacqueline Bouvier "Jackie" Kenney Onassis, is not independently notable for her own article on Wikipedia. WP:GNG has not been met. There is no Significant coverage coverage of the subject that speaks of her directly and in detail. If you do a quick Google search, you will find that Anna Christina Radziwill is only mentioned in passing with her notable mother Caroline Bouvier Radziwill and other notable family members. She is only mentioned in passing in reliable sources, such as here. ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 19:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Delete for lack of notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Fate of the Lhapa (soundtrack)

Fate of the Lhapa (soundtrack) (  | 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:NALBUMS. AllMusic is not a source for notability, and no one else has reviewed it. It has not won a major award, gotten any substantial coverage, etc., and it really doesn't need to be redirected - we don't have an article on the documentary. MSJapan ( talk) 19:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Discussion about other related WP:WALLEDGARDEN articles and COI (recommend !voters to read it)
  • Comment: "Plan"
See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard § Susman / Sommacal
Originally I had said, at the William Susman AfD, that I didn't think Belarca Records would be viable as stand-alone article, however, this may be sufficient independent reliable sources on their CDs for such article:
So the article could be somewhat like this: its lead section about the label's founder and the Naxos distribution;
Also the formerly deleted Francesco Di Fiore may redirect here
Other titles can be made into redirects to this section too.
(sorry for the unusual presentation of this plan: I created this reply on a separate page in my userspace in order to post it as a template on several AfDs concurrently) -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • The problem with this, if I have understood you correctly, is that Belarca Records is not a notable label and currently redirects to William Susman, who at least has a marginal notability. It is basically no different than a self-published book. It has very few recordings, and all of them including or devoted to Susman's work. And note that it is marketed through Naxos Direct, which, as has been pointed out. is no different to Amazon or CDBaby. It is not a sub-label of Naxos Records. Finally, small labels like this draw their notability from the notability of the artists and ensembles who record for them. If none of them are independently notable, then neither is the label. In my view, this is not helpful. The decision should be made on each of the artist/ensemble articles separately. This kind of transclusion of a sub-discussion also causes a potential mess in AfDs. Voceditenore ( talk) 09:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 02:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 02:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Islam in The Heart of The People

Islam in The Heart of The People (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Aside from the terrible writing -- which is a fixable issue -- I can no find reliable sources indicating this film meets WP:NFILM in any way, shape or form. (Also rather surprised by the somewhat dubious claim that former Turkish minister Abdülkadir Aksu wrote the film.) Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The only hits I got with Google are ~1min youtube videos (<100 views), wikipages, facebook (with only a handful of likes) and imdb with a synopsis that looks copied straight from a wikipage (double square brackets etc). No coverage in reliable sources whatsoever, so clearly fails GNG. I would even consider WP:A11 speedy deletion. - HyperGaruda ( talk) 04:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete only 7 G-matches and, as stated above, these are eerily similar (Creator has 6 live edits and 15 deleted ones - maybe an admin could check these?) - Arjayay ( talk) 13:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • It looks like the IMDb page was copied from the prior version the now-blocked editor has written, given that they use brackets and that it was written after the prior Wikipedia page was created. It's not a copyvio candidate, although it is decidedly non-notable. This looks to be the latest attempt by the editor to add himself (four prior attempts) and his film (one prior attempt) to Wikipedia, so I've given him an indef for self-promotion and disruptive editing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Opinions are split between either keep or merge/redirect. While several opinions are quite weak, there are valid arguments on both sides, and whether somebody transcends BLP1E is a matter of editorial judgment. The article therefore stays by default ... for now.  Sandstein  16:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Meredith McIver

Meredith McIver (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason GoldenSHK ( talk) 18:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC) Seems like this lady is an unknown ghost writer (by definition they're not supposed to be known anyway) and she happens to be trending right now due to Melania Trump's "speechgate" controversy. What are the chances she'll do anything notable again after this week or if this trending issue really is of longstanding importance? reply

Update: eight days later, I think I could support redirect to an article just on the speech controversy, but unfortunately that's been merged for the time being and is getting short shrift. I think the speech controversy is something people will want to look up in future years.-- Milowent • has spoken 12:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Milowent: Agreed, but I don't think editors will see value in the article unless/until it is fully expanded. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 14:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy redirect for BLP reasons. It can always be turned back into an article later. For now, there are serious risks of this just being a coatrack of criticism. I always tend to think that people read BLP1E too strictly, since the third criterion disqualifies a lot of BLPs that might otherwise meet the criteria. However, while the third criterion may be met in the current news cycle, it's unclear if it will remain so in the future. My guess is it actually will remain notable, and as the event and McIver's role are both covered more, that third criterion will ultimately be met. But for now, I think we ought to err on the side of caution. There's a much greater risk for harm in keeping this article than in provisionally redirecting it. —  PinkAmpers & (Je vous invite à me parler) 19:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy redirect for BLP reasons. Completely agree with the above. I just didn't know that was the exact rule that I needed to reference. Thanks PinkAmpersand. 100% same thought. Should be redirected to the Melania Trump Speech Contreversy which funny enough even has a "Main article" tag on McIver's article. GoldenSHK ( talk) 19:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Melania Trump speech plagiarism controversy (assuming that article doesn't also get deleted) sounds like a good idea to me. Funcrunch ( talk) 19:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect as a plausible search term, but a BLP1E case. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 20:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Melania Trump speech plagiarism controversy. The most significant coverage I could find about her prior to the current event was this: [4]. While somewhat entertaining, it is not significant coverage about her, and her role in the current event is both WP:BLP1E and WP:ONEEVENT at this time. 24.151.10.165 ( talk) 20:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Change to Keep. A reliable source [5] has now connected her to two independent incidences, separated by a number of years, where she has been identified by the Trump Organization as the author of damaging mistakes. In combination with some preexisting coverage regarding her ghostwriting role on Trump's books this bio now satisfies WP:GNG and no longer fails WP:BLP1E in my estimation. 24.151.10.165 ( talk) 21:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I don't think full deletion should be an option. McIver's name appears on my television screen as I write this sentence. People are and will be turning to Wikipedia for information. If people are searching for her by name, they should be directed to something. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 21:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I'm kinda 50/50 on the BLP1E thing but notability is certainly there and given a chance overtime the article will improve, If it doesn't renominate it and we'll all scream BLP1E like banshees . – Davey2010 Talk 20:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It's not strictly BLP1E because of the coverage of her as a Trump assistant and ghostwriter, credited as co-author of his 2005 book, and writtnen up as such in The NYTimes, the Guardian and other papers back in 2005/ 2007.(links on page) It's more like an actress who has a speaking role in a blockbuster movie, once, then, 10 years later, has a speaking role in a second blockbuster movie. In that role she plays maybe the private secretary, but in that role she has this one famous line. So we keep her. Becase people years form know will stumble on that moment and want to know who she is. Also WP:RAPID. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. vanity page for nn Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Gurpal singh oppal

Gurpal singh oppal (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See WP:Junk; Autobiography Ethanlu121 ( talk) 18:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC) reply

The Dumping Ground Future Characters

The Dumping Ground Future Characters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A "future characters" article isn't useful because it will be empty most of the time and, once the series is over, forever. Future characters can be listed in a "future characters" section of an existing article on the series or on the characters of the series. Largoplazo ( talk) 17:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 17:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Redirecting is useless because no one's going to search for "The Dumping Ground Future Characters", "The Dumping Ground Characters" yes but the former no!, I've merged the content in to the characters article so there's no need for this article. – Davey2010 Talk 20:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Great, thanks, Davey2010. Now, I think we can delete, as it makes more sense to have a single "characters" article, rather than a "characters" article, a "past characters" article, and a "future characters" article. GAB gab 23:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. After three relists and a lack of discussion, consensus cannot be determined. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 13:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Witold Szczypiński

Witold Szczypiński (  | 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 coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. This is essentially a CV based on primary sources (press releases, etc.). There are three news sources, two are very court and essentially press releases as well about the subjected becoming a CEO; the third is a bit better - an interview about his family (mostly his father) in a more reliable newspapaper ( [10]). Still, it is not really about him. Overall, I do not see what makes the subjected notable enough to be in an encyclopedia. The article is part of a series about a certain Polish company created by an otherwise WP:SPA; the company may be notable - but it's CEO does not seem to be. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 12:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply

This article is similar to the one in Polish Wikipedia : https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witold_Szczypi%C5%84ski — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kowal kowal ( talk • contribs) 08:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks for noting that. I've added interwiki links and stated the AfD on pl wiki at pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/biografie/2016:07:06:Witold Szczypiński. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 19:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 19:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 17:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 talk 17:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 17:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Kongu Riders Cricket Club

Kongu Riders Cricket Club (  | 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 being a minor club only the article would seem to be breaching terms of WP:GNG. It is also seeming to be not in compliance with WP:NCRIC and WP:CRIN. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 13:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 17:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Non-notable minor club. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep Wikipedia is for providing information to people about the history of the club regardless of being a Non-notable minor club or a popular one. All related references & citations were given in the page appropriately. All guidelines were met while creating the page. It is properly updated on a weekly basis and more importantly not clustered. It is not a newly started group as noted by other editors, only the page has been created recently to update all the information for viewing. Ashok4u2cool ( talk) 13:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC) reply
— Note to closing admin: Ashok4u2cool ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. )

References

  1. ^ http://www.velsarena.com/2014/04/cdca-league-entry-knock-out-tournament-at-snr-on-12-04-2014/
  2. ^ http://www.velsarena.com/2015/04/coimbatore-knock-out-matches-on-18-04-2015/
  3. ^ http://www.velsarena.com/2016/04/coimbatore-knock-news-25-04-2016/
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 17:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Seriously, this massively fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Wikipedia is not a directory for local non-notable clubs. Please show me in-depth coverage of this club in reliable newspapers like The Hindu/Times of India/Hindustan Times. Till that time, I am going with delete. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 07:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep References for publication in reliable newspaper in "The Hindu" about the match article as requested [1] Also listed in one of the cricket teams in India by "Times of India" in their website [2]

References

  1. ^ http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-sports/double-for-vijay-kunal/article8521442.ece
  2. ^ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topiclist/Cricket-teams-in-India

103.59.185.242 ( talk) 08:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: 103.59.185.242 ( talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.) 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. czar 09:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Simon Thornton

Simon Thornton (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only a single self penned reference . PROD removed. No evidence of any notability . Fails WP:GNG   Velella   Velella Talk   23:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 11:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 11:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 11:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 02:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 talk 17:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 17:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. After three relists and a lack of discussion, consensus cannot be determined. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 13:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Transformers: Dark of the Moon (toy line)

Transformers: Dark of the Moon (toy line) (  | 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 is a list of toys with nothing to establish notability for the toy line itself. TTN ( talk) 23:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 11:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 04:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 02:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 talk 17:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 17:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. After three relists and a lack of discussion, consensus cannot be determined. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 13:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Pawtoberfest

Pawtoberfest (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local event organised by non-notable local organisation, and written up in local media. Does not appear to pass WP:GNG. Pam D 22:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 11:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 11:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 02:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment to the above comment by 57Watt - it would require two or three good sources dealing substantially with the subject published in independent books, articles, or newspapers of presumed reliability. Carrite ( talk) 02:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 talk 17:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 17:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Mhhossein ( talk) 05:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Golden Films

Golden Films (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My own searches have simply found expected passing mentions but no actual substantial coverage, there's no inherited notability from their clients and I have found nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 21:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 11:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 01:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 01:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 02:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per meeting WP:CORP and improve this sad stub article about a company which has won multiple industry awards (yes, some minor), [12] [13] as diligent searches find the accompanying media coverage due to those awards. [14] [15] [16] [17] Tone and sourcing of an arguably notable topic is a matter for editorial attention, not deletion. As with similar articles, it is expected that sources would write about the product of a production/distribution company. Per guideline: "'A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." My emboldening as WP:SUBSTANTIAL is not a requirement of WP:SIGCOV (intentional redlink to underscore that it is not a mandate). Multiple sources are available. Time to address issues. Schmidt, Michael Q. 04:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 talk 17:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 17:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. After three relists and a lack of discussion, consensus cannot be determined. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 13:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Analytical Graphics

Analytical Graphics (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My own searches have simply found unacceptable sources overall, advertorial contents, press releases and other unhelpful links. My examinations here have found nothing actually convincing for any applicable notability, there's certainly not inherited notability from having Space Foundation certification. I'll note I frankly nearly tagged as speedy or PROD. SwisterTwister talk 21:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Hi, first time poster just signed up to plea with you not to delete this article. The advertising you cite is likely for products that are free such as STK and Cesium. Also worth noting the page has been in existence for at least eight years. Please to inform me what sources are inadequate or missing and I will be more than happy to improve the article. Astronika ( talk) 02:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Astronika ( talk • contribs) 02:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Astronika: we need to see significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. See WP:GOLDENRULE. ~ Kvng ( talk) 18:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 02:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 talk 17:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 17:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Multiple offices and a significant web footprint. Meets GNG, I believe, see, for example THIS coverage in the book The Future of Business: The Essentials, by Lawrence Gitman and Carl McDaniel. Carrite ( talk) 01:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Zee Entertainment Enterprises. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 01:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Zee Nung

Zee Nung (  | 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 shows no evidence of notability, and is untouched in terms of actual content since its original upload, save for the tags added by myself and User:Edward321. The article is also very poorly written, and it seems like it was simply pasted from Google Translate. GammaRadiator ( talk) 20:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 11:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 11:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Maybe so, but it appears to be from an affiliate member of the ZEE group. Therefore, it is self advertising and is ineligable as a source. GammaRadiator ( talk) 00:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
I guess you mean the articles read like advertorials? They aren't noted as such, though. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 07:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
No. Source 1 (ZEE News) has only a passing reference to ZEE Nung, instead focusing on ZEE Sine, a ZEE franchise in the Phillipines whereas Nung broadcasts in Thailand. The second source links to another unrelated article discussing one of ZEE Living's (NOT ZEE Nung) presenters being nominated for an Emmy. Because both articles are unrelated to ZEE Nung itself, there are no apparent sources and it therefore fails to meet GNGs. GammaRadiator ( talk) 12:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Oh. I thought you were referring to the Bangkok Post and The Nation articles I gave above. My comment wasn't referring to any of the refs currently used in the article. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 16:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 02:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 talk 17:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 17:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Zee Entertainment Enterprises I found an article to show that it "exists". But there is no significant coverage about the channel itself (also it fails WP:CORPDEPTH by a huge margin). More importantly, I found that the channel doesn't have its own original programming but is simply replaying popular Indian programmes owned by the network's other popular channels like Zee TV. Since it doesn't have its own programming, I would say redirect it to the parent organisation per WP:NMEDIA -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 05:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
That seems sensible. Either way, Nung is definitely not worthy of its own article. GammaRadiator ( talk) 20:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. After three relists and a lack of discussion, consensus cannot be determined. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 13:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Wildfire (Fahrenhaidt song)

Wildfire (Fahrenhaidt song) (  | 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:NSONG. Mentions of the song are in passing on articles about either Fahrenhaidt or Emmelie de Forest. PGWG ( talk) 17:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 11:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 02:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 talk 17:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 17:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD ( talk) 15:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Savarapu Vijaya Kumar

Savarapu Vijaya Kumar (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Middle-ranking government official and writer with no indication of notability per WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. He's written some books on Indian government regulations of no apparent notability per WP:NBOOK, and the claims of multiple government awards are both unreferenced and of unknown notability. I can find no significant coverage of him online in WP:Reliable sources, just author credits for his written works. OnionRing ( talk) 13:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. OnionRing ( talk) 13:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. OnionRing ( talk) 13:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. OnionRing ( talk) 13:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete. fails WPBIO, No RS Uncletomwood ( talk) 08:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 02:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist — Music1201 talk 17:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 17:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR .None of his books are notable and fail WP:NBOOK.Non notable Government official. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 03:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus. After three relists and a lack of discussion, consensus cannot be determined. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 13:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Divyen Raithatha (Producer)

Divyen Raithatha (Producer) (  | 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:GNG & relies mostly on self-published sources. for (;;) (talk) 12:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. for (;;) (talk) 12:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. for (;;) (talk) 12:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. for (;;) (talk) 12:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 02:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist — Music1201 talk 17:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 17:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Planting Peace. Opinions are split between merge and delete. The compromise is to redirect and let editorial consensus determine what, if anything, should be merged from the history.  Sandstein  16:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Billboard of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz

Billboard of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz (  | 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 is about one billboard, which received coverage from a few sources on the day it went up. (In addition to the sources listed in the article, I found it also got reported by the SF Chronicle and by "NBC Out".) I could find no coverage in the week since then, and no indication it had any impact on the convention, or on the national discussion of the issues involved. I believe it should be deleted, as too trivial for inclusion here. But if people favor a merge, it should be to Planting Peace, the organization that put it up, rather than to 2016 Republican National Convention, on which it had no effect. MelanieN ( talk) 17:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Sources
Another Believer, I would certainly encourage you to expand the article if possible. However, I would note that of the sources you list, EVERY ONE of them appeared on July 14, nothing since; and only a few are what would be considered mainstream sources (as opposed to things like www.liberalamerica.com and www.usuncut.com). Also, they pretty much all say the same thing: what the billboard shows, who put it up, and why. If you can find additional material so as to expand the article, or if it receives further Reliable Source commentary or followup, I could be persuaded to withdraw my nomination. -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Just an FYI: I've added some additional sources to the above list and to the article. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 18:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Pharos: Would the short-lived Trump-Pence logo be included in that article as well? 0;-D -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Why not? It's a phase in political art history, much like the 2008 campaign, which surely deserves its own article too. For context, I'm a bit of a campaign paraphernalia junkie, I wrote Tippecanoe and Tyler Too a few years ago.-- Pharos ( talk) 21:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
It is already mentioned there with what seems to me to be about the right amount, just needs the references added. Thoughtmonkey ( talk) 19:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 05:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Nico's Last Concert: Fata Morgana

Nico's Last Concert: Fata Morgana (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Outside of a mention in The Rolling Stone Album Guide, this does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 ( talk) 00:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Merge Non-notable album by a notable artist per WP:NALBUM. Merge with artist space.

1. …has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works…: Not demonstrated 2. …has appeared…national music chart: Not demonstrated 3. …has been certified gold or higher...: Not demonstrated 4. …nominated for a major music award…: Not demonstrated 5. …in rotation nationally by a major...: Not demonstrated 6. …subject…substantial broadcast…national radio or TV network…: Not demonstrated Nikto wha? 02:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 02:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 16:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 10:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Sebastian Brown

AfDs for this article:
Sebastian 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)

Article's subject does not meet the criteria WP:MUS. Brownsc ( talk) 02:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: Repaired malformed nomination on behalf of another user. However, I'm expressing no formal opinion on the article's merits — as the original nominator the first time, I will say that I still don't see any substantive evidence that WP:NMUSIC has actually been met at all, but (a) my participation was canvassed, (b) there's some circumstantial evidence (username + prior edits — actually predating the existence of this article — to the same high school the topic attended) that the nominator may actually be the article subject himself, and (c) I'm not really all that interested in actually re-engaging with this, and so I'm staying out of it apart from fixing the discussion formatting. Bearcat ( talk) 21:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 21:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 21:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 02:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Update: I note that this has still had no participation after two relists, and may be in danger of closing as no consensus. However, I wanted to point out that Brownsc, the original nominator, did confirm in a post to my talk page that he is the subject himself. Accordingly, under the circumstances I'm now recommending that this be deleted per WP:BIODEL, as an article about a low-profile individual who has personally requested deletion. Bearcat ( talk) 15:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD ( talk) 15:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Camp Lahti

Camp Lahti (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Camp with no evidence of importance. I can't see why the A7 was declined. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 17:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 17:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (Borderline) G11 plus agreement here. BethNaught ( talk) 10:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC) reply

KiranKumar

KiranKumar (  | 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 business-man. References show that he has been given an award from a minor Deemed to be University and that he has given an interview to a local paper. Fails WP:GNG   Velella   Velella Talk   08:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 10:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply

2015–16 F.C. Halifax Town season

AfDs for this article:
2015–16 F.C. Halifax Town season (  | 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 season is about a team not playing in a WP:FPL. We have long-standing consensus at AFD that only teams in fully professional leagues get season articles per WP:NSEASONS. All those refs look good; but they are all WP:ROUTINE coverage with many transfer announcements and the like. Yellow Dingo  (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 15:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  16:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply

188BET

188BET (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No coverage in reliable sources, so fails WP:COMPANY. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 20:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 17:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 15:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was unmerge articles and redirect to disambig. czar 05:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC) reply

El Ain, Lebanon

El Ain, Lebanon (  | 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 page has existed for quite a while now but it has never been sourced. Doesn't assert significance and the only Google hits are weather forecasts. Eventhorizon51 ( talk) 19:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 17:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 17:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 15:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 05:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Kelly anthony

Kelly anthony (  | 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 unsourced, otherwise fails WP:GNG. A Google search only provides either unrelated sources, unreliable sources, or Anthony's social media accounts. JudgeRM 18:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 15:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MER-C 12:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Yin Xiaoyuan

Yin Xiaoyuan (  | 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 poet, self-promotional article. Fails WP:BIO JMHamo ( talk) 23:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

  • I have added her name in Chinese so you could google it and find out yourself she is absolutely notable!Most of the interviews and news on her are in Chinese, but it is not difficult to translate them with software.
I have also added 15+ evidents (most of them from official websites of academic societies) on her notability, please refer to them. Baikespwiki ( talk) 01:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC) reply

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

  • Comment Since the bulk of the article consisted of reproduction of her (translated, I assume) poetry, I've put a copyvio mask on top of all of it and expect that some revision deletion will be done. Largoplazo ( talk) 21:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The problem is that the article is confused gibberish. For example, claiming "Iki of Bashō, Wabi of Muramasa①" as an English translation is obviously bogus. And since nothing in the article corresponds to any indication of notability, it may as well be deleted, since the usable content is empty. Imaginatorium ( talk) 09:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC) reply
(Followup comment) I have also so far found zero (0) references which are actually obviously third-party. The text claims "Her works in Chinese, English, Japanese, German and French...", but there is no evidence in English, Japanese, German, or French of these, and in fact this seems to mean more writing in Chinese, notionally being translations of something or other. Imaginatorium ( talk) 16:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 15:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 00:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Nicolas Kun de Kozma

Nicolas Kun de Kozma (  | 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 appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. Except for the first reference (a negative review), the references are primary sources showing that de Kozma has written a number of books, and that these are in libraries. But there is no evidence of notability. WP:AUTHOR calls for one of the following criteria to be met:

  1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
  2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
  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.
  4. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

Simply having written a large number of books is not enough. Furthermore, the facts of de Kozma's life have no verifying references at all. "Former professor" could mean an adjunct who taught a single course. ubiquity ( talk) 13:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ubiquity ( talk) 13:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ubiquity ( talk) 13:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. After completing a full review of all of the previous AFD closes, I think it is safe to say this is the first true deletion discussion to transpire thus far for this article. The only AFD in which anything remotely akin to a full discussion occurred was from just a month before I joined this site, nearly a decade ago. And, our policies have changed drastically since then. But, even so, some of the same concerns being brought up now had been presented at that time.

The initial and lasting concern has been that there are no sources providing the requisite evidence of notability; this concern is not misplaced. As at no point, in nearly ten years, have sources been presented to properly establish notability. Simply put: passing mentions, trivial coverage, and brief summaries do not qualify as significant coverage; the topic must be covered directly and in detail. Furthermore, the sources must be independent; primary sources cannot establish notability. However, the sources shown thus far do not appear to fulfill these requirements. After nearly ten years, that is disappointing.

In closing, the arguments presented for the deletion of this article are found to be backed by policy, specifically: WP:WEB, WP:N, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:RS. The arguments for retention, without the existence of any policy backed evidence to support their request, held no weight in the consideration of this close. Therefore, the subject of this article is found to lack the required notability for inclusion on this site. (Note: This close is held with prejudice against any recreation of this article, until the sourcing and notability issues are properly addressed.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Railpage Australia

AfDs for this article:
Railpage Australia (  | 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 know, I know. It's the ninth nomination and the article is listed at Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. Hear me out. Of the eight previous nominations, only the second was a full discussion. The first was withdrawn after a perfunctory discussion, while numbers 3–8 (listed at right) were thrown out for various procedural reasons. The site was at the center of a major conduct dispute, both on- and off-wiki, which culminated in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Railpage Australia. There hasn't been a true discussion about the notability of this topic since 2007.

I don't think the site meets our notability guidelines and I don't think the article establishes a claim to notability. While the lede claims that the site has been "quoted as a source in major state and national newspapers, as well as in government and private research publications", this amounts to a few links to the site sprinkled in to documents produced in the mid-2000s. None of these are about the site itself. Most of the information about the site is self-referenced, which cannot be used to establish notability. Most of the Google Scholar citations are false positives because of the similarity between "Railpage" and "Rail, page." In any event, citation of a source does not make that source notable. One source that does discuss the site in brief, by Roger Clarke, is apparently sourced to a userspace draft on Wikipedia itself. While the Parliament of Australia did include a link to Railpage in 2007 (see [21] and [22]), it does not do so any longer and the inclusion of a bare link without context does not, in my view, help establish a site's notability. What we're missing here is any kind of commentary or discussion about the site itself independent of the site.

In addition, the article had major COI issues from its inception. It was started by Bevans@omni.com.au ( talk · contribs), probably the site's owner (or someone claiming to be him), and was heavily-edited by Dbromage ( talk · contribs), apparently a major figure in the site's history. This wouldn't pass muster with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest today and it was shaky even in 2006–2007. Dbromage has since been banned for sockpuppetry in an unrelated matter.

Leaving aside all the problems with tone and self-sourced context, this topic fails WP:WEB. It probably failed WP:WEB in 2007 (and there were those who thought so) but standards were looser then and a truly disruptive conduct dispute clouded the issue. Thanks for reading this far, Mackensen (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 20:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 20:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 20:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 20:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy close  WP:BEFORE C3 states, "If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page..."  Looking at the talk page shows that this nominator has not engaged in discussion on the talk page of the article in an attempt to resolve his or her concerns, just as for this same reason there is no support on the talk page for an AfD.  Unscintillating ( talk) 13:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
    • That's not how AfD works; if you have a substantive comment this would be a good time to make it. Mackensen (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
      • Given that you want to discuss this, why did you not initiate discussion on the talk page?  What about WP:BEFORE C4?  Unscintillating ( talk) 16:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
        • Feel free to suggest a merge target and content which you think could be merged. Mackensen (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
          • Those are content issues.  As per WP:DEL, "The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page..."  Also from WP:DEL, "Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page..." which I would also support in addition to, or in conjunction with, a speedy close.  Regards, Unscintillating ( talk) 17:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
            • You're the one who raised C4, which talks about merges. I didn't talk about merges because I don't think the topic is notable. Quoting chapter-and-verse from WP:BEFORE doesn't change the fact that it's advisory, at best. Mackensen (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
              • WP:BEFORE begins, "Prior to nominating article(s) for deletion, please be sure to..."  The editnotice refers every editor who posts at AfD to this text.  Whether or not you think it is advisory, the community has politely asked to you do this.  Unscintillating ( talk) 18:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
              • As for asserting that merges are not relevant, WP:N is not a deletion policy...the deletion policy is WP:DEL8, and is a higher requirement than WP:Notability.  WP:BEFORE A1 tells us, "Read and understand these policies and guidelines...1. The Wikipedia deletion policy, which explains valid grounds for deletion as well as alternatives to deletion and the various deletion processes"  See also the essay WP:INSIGNIFICANCE.  Unscintillating ( talk) 18:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
                • I'm sorry, but these comments are nonsensical. I never said merges were irrelevant; I simply didn't propose one because I thought there was nothing to merge. Articles which fail to meet the relevant notability guideline may absolutely be deleted, as the very policy you quoted says: "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)." I assert this article fails WP:WEB. Says so right in the nomination. Again, I invite your views on whether this article satisfies WP:WEB. Mackensen (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion is relisted following discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 July 17.  Sandstein  12:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  12:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: TL;DR version of nomination: this is, at most, the third actual nomination and the first in nine years. The site fails WP:WEB. Mackensen (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, but preserve somewhere. This is a valuable piece of internet lore and should be preserved somewhere. Maybe http://www.railroad.net/ would be a good home? But (at least in its current form), it's not an encyclopedia article, and I'd be surprised if we could find the kind of WP:RS we need to make it one. There's a ton of references, but I don't see any which meet our needs. I looked at the first eight or so, and none of those were even close to what we want. Possibly there are better sources further down the list, but I'm not going to slog through the whole list of 42 (none with titles that stand out and grab me as being likely candidates) to see if there are any. It would be useful for this discussion if somebody could find the 2 or 3 best ones and list them here for easy review. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - without a doubt, fails WP:WEB. I hope we can finally kill this article, despite the fact it has had 9 unsuccessful nominations. There is a statement in the lead section that I would like to share: "It has been quoted as a source in major state and national newspapers, as well as in government and private research publications."[ 1] There is not a single source by this bold statement. I struggle to think of any rationale that warrants a "keep". -- ProgrammingGeek ( Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 14:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Um, no, it isn't. I did quite a lot of searching and found only passing references in some Australian broadcasters' websites. That's not coverage. ProgrammingGeek ( Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 08:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • How can something pass (or fail) a guideline "based on policy"? And which WP:WEB are you reading which says none of that stuff as actual criteria, but does give two actual criteria. "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself..." and "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization" - do you have either of those? -- 82.14.37.32 ( talk) 08:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC) reply
"When evaluating the notability of web content, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." - Considered. Passed. Also, "These criteria are presented as rules of thumb...". I am not using the specified rules of thumb, but other indicators of significance.  The Steve  14:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Fails WP:NWEB. There are claims to notability, but it doesn't seem anybody, myself included, has been able to find anything approachin sufficient coverage on which to base an article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and Move to railpage.com.au, primary name I first thought that this might be the most elaborate hoax of all time, a website from 1994 having no sources seems impossible. I could find two third party sources on Railpage Australia, here Book extract read on National Radio, How to Plan Your Dream Vacation Using the Web. The second give signficant coverage, still borderline GNG. However if you search under the current title "railpage.com.au" you get many sources citing the webpage Daily Mail, Transport, the Environment and Security: Making the Connection, [26], etc. Valoem talk contrib 19:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC) reply
    These were discussed above; none of them are about the site. Did you find any sources which discuss the site in any depth? Mackensen (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:WEB, only sourcing appears to be brief mentions, nothing in-depth and reliable about the site itself. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 08:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the subject simply doesn't pass WP:WEB, which allows two routes to demonstrating notability: the GNG route of significant coverage in third party reliable sources, or winning well known awards (which isn't claimed here). The third-party sources which are held up as evidence of notability boil down to places which mention, reference, quote or link to Railpage Australia. Actual coverage of the site in such sources is extremely slim. Aside from these we are left with numerous citations to the site itself (which isn't independent) and automated pages such as traffic stats or domain registration (which are virtually worthless). It does look like a determined effort has been made to present this as a notable topic, but there's very little to back that up. Hut 8.5 21:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. I suggest waiting more than five days after the last AfD to start the next one. Also see WP:BEFORE. ( non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 23:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Jacob_Sartorius

AfDs for this article:
Jacob_Sartorius (  | 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 internet personality. Seems like self promotion more than anything, also no significant references present.

One of the references cited is a tweet - ""Jacob Sartorius on Twitter: "I'll be joining @MAGCONTOUR as a special guest! #MAGCONTalent 😊"". Twitter. January 20, 2016. Retrieved July 7, 2016." /info/en/?search=Jacob_Sartorius#cite_ref-3

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. JohnCD ( talk) 16:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Asia–Pacific Football Academy

Asia–Pacific Football Academy (  | 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 contested, no reason given. No evidence of notability, no significant coverage required by WP:GNG, only one source which is WP:ROUTINE. Giant Snowman 07:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 07:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Eric Hafner

Eric Hafner (  | 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 politician with very few reliable sources provided. Tinton5 ( talk) 06:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • DELETE: Sources confirm that he is a candidate, and 2 sources outline his positions. NOTE I've requested input here about the extent to which those position declaration interviews count towards GNG, as we're likely to see many similar in the next few months. Crow Caw 14:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Since all candidates in any given election get offered those kinds of interviews or surveys to articulate their positions on the election issues, those don't assist in conferring notability as such. Bearcat ( talk) 21:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Hafner is a candidate for a nomination. If he wins the election he will be notable, until then he is not. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Candidates in primaries do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason before becoming a candidate, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to become notable enough for a Wikipedia article on the basis of the election itself. But nothing here demonstrates that at all — the sourcing is purely WP:ROUTINE election coverage of the type that all candidates always get. Bearcat ( talk) 21:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was snow keep. The previous AfD closed as "keep" last week, why not improve the article instead of starting deletion debates you won't win? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Tiffany Trump

AfDs for this article:
Tiffany Trump (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of any independent notability. The daughter of a far-right politician, but notability is not inherited. Tataral ( talk) 06:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note that I wasn't aware of previous deletion discussions, but I still think it's clear that a young student who happens to be the daughter of a candidate for a political office should absolutely not have a biographical article, and at best only a redirect to her father's biography. -- Tataral ( talk) 06:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Look at readers' interest in the article (in the last 20 days). On average, some 5,000 to 10,000 readers have tried to get information about Tiffany Trump. On 19 July, the number topped 200,000. If interest is that high, information should not be denied to the reader. In other words, the article should not be deleted. -- Lektor w ( talk) 06:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Interest is nice, but not the only reason to keep a page; Wikipedia pages exist because the subject is notable, not popular. 331dot ( talk) 08:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I think the fact she spoke at the Convention means there are probably enough RS to permit a page on her, and if she makes campaign appearances there will be further sources. I have also read that Donald Trump's kids are influential in his campaign so we may see sources on that as well. 331dot ( talk) 08:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
I would add it has only been two weeks since the previous AfD and the reasons don't seem to have changed much. 331dot ( talk) 08:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy procedural Keep and shame on Nom for this disruptive AFD, the previosu AFD closed as KEEP on 13 July. Appropriately as per: WP:INHERIT which explicitly states that: "Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG." This girl is "known solely for" being the famous daughter of a famous man. She's famous for being famous. Since her dad got nominated for President, she's even more famous. Do I see a point to all this publicity? No, but that's me, I would also like to vote the Karsashians off the island. But I do recognize that - like the Kardashians - Tiffany is famous for being famous. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 09:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The nominator is correct in saying that notability is not inherited; however, we cannot dismiss any coverage Tiffany Trump receives, on the grounds that she is Donald Trump's daughter. A fair number of the sources examine her as an individual, such as this, or this, or this. She meets GNG, in my view. Additionally, while I acknowledge that popularity and notability are not the same, it does rub me the wrong way to delete a page that has received 300,000 views (!) in the month of July alone. Finally, she is a speaker at the Republican National Convention; and while she is unlikely to have been there but for her father, the fact remains that she is a speaker at one of the two largest political events in the country. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 10:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Michig ( talk) 07:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Louie Ignacio

Louie Ignacio (  | 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 director. The one reference that was on the page didn't mention him at all. I can't find any significant coverage of him with a Google search. Appears to be a vanity page that lists a bunch of unverifiable credits. LAroboGuy ( talk) 22:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Broad (200+ results), if shallow, coverage of him pops up on google news. The articles aren't about HIM, as opposed to being about his work, or about an actor within his work, but the aggregate breadth seems sufficient to establish notability for me. Fieari ( talk) 00:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Forgive me if I'm ignorant of the requirements, because this is my first deletion nomination, but I used WP:DIRECTOR as a guideline before I submitted. There's four possibilities for notability there, and I don't believe he meets any of them: (1) He is not regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. (2) he did not originate a significant new concept, theory, or technique. (3) He did not play a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work that was the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. (4) His work has not won significant critical attention, which is the only part of (4) that would be relevant. I didn't know that being briefly mentioned in 200+ Google results is an indication of notability in any Wikipedia notability guidelines. I could be wrong, so that's why I'm asking for feedback on this. LAroboGuy ( talk) 03:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Gotcha, thanks. I did notice the phrase ""Significant coverage" gets a lot of emphasis on both of those pages. I don't think this subject has received "Significant coverage" in any sources, reliable or otherwise. LAroboGuy ( talk) 17:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Draft instead as, yes, there are sources, but still not to the levels of convincing notability, the article is still actually questionable because of this, and I'm not seeing anything else to suggest substantially convincing. It's best therefore Drafted and improved if needed. SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist Yellow Dingo  (talk) 05:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo  (talk) 05:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW NeilN talk to me 07:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Burhan Muzaffar Wani

Burhan Muzaffar Wani (  | 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:SINGLEEVENT and WP:BLP1E.

Should be redirected here - 2016 Kashmir unrest.

John Jaffar Janardan ( talk) 04:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete this article on this guy since he doesn't deserve publicity, empathy or even any reference in history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.246.49.58 ( talk) 12:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

As i assume and clearly looks that nominator deletion reason is completely based on his personal dislikeness.

So please end this discussion and state the verdict. Nauriya ( Rendezvous) 22:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: Mention may be made that the article has [as of this writing] interwiki links to corresponding entries in the Hindi Wikipedia, the Eastern Punjabi Wikipedia and the Urdu Wikipedia. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 03:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 06:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 06:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 06:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There is no doubts that this article's topic is not the matter in question here. It fulfills all of Wikipedia's requirements for notability. Rather than using the threat of deletion to move it toward a specific agenda, those concerned with it should engage in honest discussions, and if needed, third opinion and arbitration. Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 07:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Deleted. Hoax based on content from Rahat Indori. Creator blocked as a suspected sock. utcursch | talk 22:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Shiv Parashar

Shiv Parashar (  | 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, indirect copyright violation; dishonest attempt by creator to modify Rahat Indori to fit the subject. Compare the above article mentioned with Special:Permalink/730110940, where the creator removed the G12 afterwards and basically removed some parts and added some fake information. Probably should be speedily deleted on an IAR basis for the dishonest copying by creator. — Esquivalience ( talk) 03:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  16:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Relapse refill

Relapse refill (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See WP:Junk Ethanlu121 ( talk) 02:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Ethanlu121 ( talk) 14:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

JSDC India

JSDC India (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advertisement, unremarkable organization. Ethanlu121 ( talk) 02:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia ( talk) 09:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia ( talk) 09:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. WP:SNOW NeilN talk to me 03:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

2016 WWE draft

2016 WWE draft (  | 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 event Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 02:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Sam Williams (curler)

Sam Williams (curler) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

probable AUTOBIO as created by User of same name. Highest level is junior Asia Pacific not world championships is not enough to satisfy WP:ATHLETE LibStar ( talk) 13:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect: whereas everybody agrees that notability has been not demonstrated at the moment, there is an obvious target for a redirect, which is always preferable to deletion.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Erik Drost

Erik Drost (  | 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:GNG. Searches come up with no evidence of notability. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Procedural close (nac) The page in question has already been deleted under WP:CSD#G3. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 05:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Healthcare and Aging

Healthcare and Aging (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See WP:NOTESSAY Ethanlu121 ( talk) 00:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Jake Thompson (born 1989)

Jake Thompson (born 1989) (  | 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:NBASEBALL and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 00:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 18:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_July_20&oldid=732819143"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE