Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 4 July 6 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.  Sandstein  09:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Innocent and Vain: An Introduction to Nico

Innocent and Vain: An Introduction to Nico (  | 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 satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 ( talk) 23:56, 5 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  10:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

The Seventh-day Remnant Church

The Seventh-day Remnant Church (  | 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 GNG and ORG. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. On scrutiny, appears to only exist as a web forum, not an actual denomination. Regards, James ( talk/ contribs) 23:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 15:31, 6 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  09:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Hidromek

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

Recreated without reliable sources on 5 July 2016. Previously deleted 3 times for failure to meet notability criteria 2008, 2010, 2014. Basic WP:BEFORE reveals little in the way of in-depth, reliable 3rd party sources. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 22:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 23:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 23:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I found [1] in Takvim and [2] in Cumhuriyet. Google Translate says they're about the company, but... I don't like trusting Google Translate. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 06:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. The article as it currently stands does not establish notability, but the corresponding article on Turkish Wikipedia, with citations to what look like articles substantially about the subject from both Hürriyet and Milliyet, looks as if it might well meet our notability standards - provided the cited articles don't turn out to be nothing more than recycled press releases (which I don't feel able to judge either way when, as with Turkish, I don't know the language). And while, beyond this, Google searches provide a wide enough range of results for notability to look likely, the small minority of English-language results among them unfortunately do look like press releases. This is something for which we need a relatively experienced Turkish-speaking editor, as it looks as if any reliable sources will be very largely in Turkish. PWilkinson ( talk) 10:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Even the Turkish article arguably doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. One of the links is misrepresented as being from the New York Times but the vast majority of the references come from a single source. Even if the Turkish article did have significant coverage, there still remains the WP:BURDEN that this article, on the English Wikipedia, must meet our standards. Since this article had repeated failed to do so, I am recommending a delete with the caveat that it could be recreated IF the appropriate references are found and included. Mkdw talk 17:52, 12 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 as a week has suggested nothing else (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 22:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Ted Rogers School of Hospitality & Tourism Management

Ted Rogers School of Hospitality & Tourism Management (  | 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 subschool of a school at a university. The school this subschool is part of is already redirected to the university. Had boldly redirected this but was reverted so here we are. Redirect to Ryerson University is a quite satisfactory outcome. John from Idegon ( talk) 22:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:34, 6 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. — Spaceman Spiff 07:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Ram Narayan Mishra

Ram Narayan Mishra (  | 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 small landowner who had a farm of 1000 trees and who was the benefactor of a local temple. The only chance of notability is the claim that he was also a Sanskrit scholar, but I haven't even been able to verify that. The first few pages of a google search in English seem to all be about other Ram Narayan Mishras. Trying in Hindi gets three pages of results revealing only the writer of a travelogue. No results for the one spelling variant I tried [3]. Pinging Tseung Kwan O who might be able to help find sources. Uanfala ( talk) 22:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Uanfala ( talk) 22:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Uanfala ( talk) 22:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
As I have said, this person does in fact exist [1], however, there are a huge amount of factual inaccuracies in this Wiki page that require revision, and also unreliable sourcing as per WP:BLPPROD requirements. You may still nominate a PROD for this article on these grounds, as I have only deprodded it on the basis that this person may exist, and that this Wiki page only misrepresents this person (additional revision required), without fulfilling PROD requirements. Thank you! Tseung Kwan O ( talk) 22:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Well, this verifies the existence of a Ram Narayan Mishra from Fiji who became a policeman in the US. However, the person this article is about is a Sanskrit scholar from India. There are quite a few people out there with this name and I think the closest match I can find is a person who was involved in the Nagari Pracharini Sabha [4], but he lived at the end of the 19 c. and the current article reads like it's about someone who's a bit more contemporary. Uanfala ( talk) 22:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ http://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?gl=ROOT_CATEGORY&rank=1&new=1&so=1&MSAV=0&msT=1&gss=ms_f-2_s&gsfn=Ram&gsln=Mishra&msdpn__ftp=PA
  • So there does exist a Sanskrit scholar who's published books in the 90s [5], who is (or used to be) a reader at Ganganath Jha Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapith, llahabad, [6] although he isn't mentioned on the institution's website [7]. Now, is he the same person as the one the article is about? The article doesn't give us enough to verify. There might be a case for completely rewriting it but the crucial question then is whether that other Ramnarayan Mishra is notable enough, and I'm not sure I see how he meets the requirements at WP:NPROF. Uanfala ( talk) 14:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Uanfala ( talk) 15:16, 7 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. Katie talk 11:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply

New Heights Educational Group

New Heights Educational Group (  | 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 organisation that fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Created and maintained by users with conflicts of interest, and no evidence of actual substantial coverage about them, as required by Wikipedia Joseph2302 ( talk) 21:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 ( talk) 21:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 ( talk) 21:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 ( talk) 21:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Go ahead and delete it Atchopra ( talk) 02:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Comment. I've no particular opinion on whether the Stevie and the Ohio State secretary mention just barely constitute notability. However, Maproom, it seems that was I who added the States News Service ref, currently #3, to the page. My Highbeam access seems to have expired, so I can't check, but I'm pretty sure that I added it because it does mention the group (I just can't think how I'd have found it otherwise). Joseph2302, I've no knowledge of, connection with, or interest in, the group – I tidied up the page after mistakenly nominating for speedy deletion (G11/G12) without first checking the talk-page. I've tried to keep it tidy since then. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 16:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC) reply
I see I was wrong – I read the paragraphs that were displayed when I clicked on ref. 3, but failed to notice that's there's more behind a paywall. Maproom ( talk) 16:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Justlettersandnumbers I meant the other SPAs who've been editing this article. I had no intention of saying you were editing with a COI. Joseph2302 ( talk) 17:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Maproom, Joseph2302, no problem. On reflection, I can't see how a mention among seven non-profits in a monthly round-up in one state alone could help to justify any claim of notability, so I think it all hinges on the Stevie. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 22:13, 14 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 as although there's not a large consensus, the collections are always a sign of notability and the 1 Delete vote has not commented or objected to these thus, with no other outstanding Deletes, this is a Keep (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 22:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Damien Smith (artist)

Damien Smith (artist) (  | 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 artist. Does not pass GNG. Maybeparaphrased ( talk) 21:01, 5 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) 20:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Faculty of Engineering - Kharazmi University

Faculty of Engineering - Kharazmi University (  | 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 references to reliable sources showing it is notable, previous PROD. Aloneinthewild ( talk) 20:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 15:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 15:33, 6 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 16:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Paul Mason (canoeist)

Paul Mason (canoeist) (  | 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 canoeist has been tagged for notability for more than 18 months. Does not pass GNG Maybeparaphrased ( talk) 20:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:55, 6 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) ansh 666 02:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Eric Deis

Eric Deis (  | 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 artist that does not pass WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG Maybeparaphrased ( talk) 20:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

  • I've added about a dozen refs since the nomination. Newly added sources are decent. For example: the Vancouver Sun, Huffpost, Wired Magazine. I also found a significant award that he received in 2007, and that his work is in the Vancouver Art Gallery collection. Given the visibility of his public projects, the coverage by reliable sources and the award and collection, I think this meets WP:GNG. So, Keep. HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 02:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. Most of the sources are quite local, and the piece in the Vancouver Art Gallery was a gift of the artist rather than an acquisition [8]. Still, the Wired piece and another in the Globe and Mail [9] demonstrate both notability beyond BC, and significance that extends beyond a single story, I think enough to pass WP:GNG. They're on his art rather than on him but that's ok: their art, rather than their personal lives, is what artists should be notable for. — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
David Eppstein, wow, your analysis is very astute and spot on. I do disagree on one point: the use of local coverage to determine notability. If local were a criteria for sources, then we would have to eliminate someone, for example, who was covered solely in local sources like the New York Times, The New Yorker, Vogue Magazine, the Wall Street Journal and so on. I think it's safe to question the size of a publication (the Nanaimo source is fairly weak), but to say that something is local and therefore does not count is not reasonable. Also, whether a piece is a collection is a gift or acquisition is of little consequence, I think: It's the acceptance that counts. The validation comes in the wanting. HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 14:37, 6 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 17:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

William A. Dodge

William A. Dodge (  | 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 military person, though I'm sure a good one. The article reads like a resume and is unlikely to be improvable because the sourcing just isn't there. I have looked and found nothing besides a few blog posts and perfunctory profile pages at the US Navy websites. Almost all of the other hits are about other William Dodges. I think this article fails our sourcing and notability requirements. Reyk YO! 20:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:46, 5 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 as a week has suggested nothing else (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 22:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply

International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy

International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy (  | 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 scientific organization tagged since June 2008. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 20:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - easily satisfies GNG. There are three reliable, independent sources that discuss it at length and are already cited for much of the material in this article: Lastovicka (2009); Thébault et al. (2015); Gubbins and Herrero-Bervera (2007). The 2008 tags should have been removed long ago. RockMagnetist( talk) 21:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Any issues with notability or references should have been raised on the article's talk page. As this has not been done the tag is questionable, and that is the only basis given for deletion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I have added some references to address notability. — Gorthian ( talk) 02:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This organization has an ongoing significant impact in its field - I guess I could say impact in its covered "fields" (plural). The new addition of reliable sources affirm the notability of this organization. Also, this organization has national and international prominence WP:NGO, not to mention it rigorously produces endorsed scientific standards. Steve Quinn ( talk) 03:34, 9 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. Katie talk 11:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Bob Hansell

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

OTRS agent: Deletion requested in ticket:2016070510017734. ( t)  Josve05a ( c) 20:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 15:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 15:34, 6 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  09:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Gnoppix

Gnoppix (  | 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 operating system. This article was previously deleted under WP:PROD and then undeleted as a contested PROD. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 20:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

References

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as a week suggested nothing else (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 22:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Pusher (film)

Pusher (film) (  | 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 disambiguation page is an incomplete disambiguation containing a parenthetical disambiguator other than "(disambiguation)". GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 19:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:16, 6 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 the commenters, the initially provided sources appear to be passing mentions and not WP:SIGCOV. After the delete closure, I will editorially take up Czar's suggestion to recreate the title as a redirect to ZX Spectrum#Copying and backup. ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 20:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply

World of Spectrum

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

Lots of sources, but most of them are primary or trivial; or, indeed, concentrate on the fact the website was a copyright violation. Practically none of them are serious, reliable, in-depth third-party coverage. I await the SPA/IP barrage. Laura Jamieson (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

I'd rather my website was deleted tbh. If you can allow people to vandalise it and try to destroy a 20yr relationship with copyright holders without stepping in then it's best of deleted. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fogartylee ( talk • contribs) 19:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

  • I did, but everything I found was either not a reliable source or was about the copyright issue, which is sort of a BLP1E version for a website. Your three links; all three mention "World of Spectrum" once in passing. No way that's in-depth coverage; need to do better than that, I'm afraid. Just typing "World of Spectrum" into Google and saying "hey look, results" doesn't work. There may well be good sources out there, but I haven't found them, and nor have you. Laura Jamieson (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 19:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Hi @ Iridescent:, how would the sources you looked up make World of Spectrum pass WP:GNG? The BBC says "He has sourced the files for the game from the same retro site where he found the circuit designs, World of Spectrum, a magnet for the computer's international fan base", Metro points to the site for free games, "You do get those 1,000 games but these are essentially free anyway, as we’ve been advised that it’s perfectly legal to download and play (by putting them on a SD card and slotting it into the Vega) any of the games from World of Spectrum", and so does Wired: "The 1,000 included games seems generous, but most of these are actually free to download legally from World of Spectrum, and the list is also missing a lot of the titles fans would consider 'key' to the system's history". soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Just because a source is primary does not make it inadmissible, or in some way count negatively. Equally although the BBC ref mentioned does only mention WoS once, it's hardly "in passing" - Heck "sourced the files for the game from the same retro site where he found the circuit designs, World of Spectrum, a magnet for the computer's international fan base." - the same is true of the other two links - neither are in passing.
  • No, both are in passing, because they're not actually about WoS. We need reliable sources that are in-depth, i.e. are about the website. I'm sure there's a chance they exist, but someone needs to find them. Laura Jamieson (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I would turn that on its head and say that notability is ascertained by the fact then that even though an article is not about WoS, the topic was felt important enough to be mentioned and have relevance. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 05:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • By that logic every website mentioned in a BBC article should have it's own wikipedia page? In twenty years the site does not seem to have done anything remotely notable which has led to any coverage by reliable third-parties (and by that I mean outside the niche of retro-computer fans). Virtually all the citations on the page originate from the site itself; the exceptions being the site's only 'claim to fame' - mistakenly being sent a cease-and-desist letter from IDSA - not even BLP1E but accidental BLP1E!. MrMajors ( talk) 07:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Nowhere do I suggest such a thing, because that is silly - and shame on you for using such a claim. What I suggest is that even though the article in question is primarily about topic "X", it was felt that topic "Y" (in this case WoS) was worthy of mention because it was inherently relevant to topic "X". Of course that does not then imply that I think every topic "A", "B" & "C" is deserving of an article. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 11:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • It's not "inherently relevant" though, Ben Heck could have sourced the circuit designs and files from many websites - he happened to get them from World of Spectrum, and the article happened to mention that. It does not make World of Spectrum in any way more notable. MrMajors ( talk) 12:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The copyright section is important because there was a concerted effort to stay within the law, perhaps not well enough enforced (OR) but nevertheless RARE titles were not available for example and a list of permissions was available. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 20:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
And as a note to Lee Fogarty - it ain't your website. WP:OWN is applicable here.

I can't see anything on that page that is relevant here - the site is hosted by my, all of the scripts, databases and files were handed to me, Martijn isn't coming back. I can register wikipedia.me.uk - does that make the owner of wikipedia? The domain points to MY server - paid for by me. What more do you need to see that I am the owner? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fogartylee ( talk • contribs) 20:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

  • I'm talking about the wikipedia page, not actual WoS itself. You stated above "I'd rather my website was deleted tbh. " - WoS may be yours, but Wikipedia and the WoS entry are not. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 05:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Also - saying permissions pages "were" available is wrong - the link has always worked - http://www.worldofspectrum.org/permits/#sofar the only thing we did - when Martijn was still owner - was to remove the actual emails because copyright holders were being spammed or abused, so we took out the details.

  • Yes, that's a fair point and one I agree on - the use of past tense was probably not the best, but it was based on the fact that I was looking backwards over the history of Wos. I agree that the permissions are still available - and important. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 05:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • This is not true, the emails from the copyright holders were available until the site was mirrored in 2014 - they are not accessible now ("Cannot open: No such file or directory"). This is not relevant to the discussion on this page though. MrMajors ( talk) 07:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

The biggest problem is with stating the site is commercial - it never has been and never will be. The preservation team are a separate entity and had a shop to cover the costs of sourcing the material. This isn't a part of WoS. By stating the site is commercial is damaging to the standing we have with copyright holders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fogartylee ( talk • contribs) 21:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Keep The World of Spectrum is the foremost ZX Spectrum resource, it's the first named when asking about where to find information about Spectrum games. Considering the fresh interest in Spectrum retro-gaming (Spectrum Vega, Vega+, Spectrum Next and the Recreated Spectrum) people will be looking for resource sites, and the World of Spectrum is that site. These projects are driven by people who participated in the ZX Spectrum market of the 1980s (Sir Clive Sinclair, Rick Dickinson and Richard Wilcox) So it would be counter-productive for readers for this article to be deleted. Isofarro ( talk) 05:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • This isn't about the site's utility as a resource, or your opinion. See Wikipedia:Notability: No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition. MrMajors ( talk) 08:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Changing my vote to Delete. Without coverage from independent reputable sources the site fails the requirements of notability. My familiarity of the site is because of my long interest in ZX Spectrum retro-gaming and being a regular visitor to the site since 1998. I am surprised by the lack of public notability signals, but that's more likely to be an indication of how insular we the ZX Spectrum community are. Seeing the current site owner last night serve up 403 Access Forbidden to visitors from Wikipedia is an abrogation of good faith, and denigrates Wikipedia's preferred policy of a Neutral Point of View on editing articles. Wikipedia is qualitatively better off without this article, and not a victim for the destructive whims of the site owner. Isofarro ( talk) 08:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Where is the notability? Lemon64 has no page, LemonAmiga has no page, CPCWiki has no page. What has World of Spectrum done that makes it worthy of an entry here? MrMajors ( talk) 09:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Two of the sources you provided yourself are about the ZX Spectrum as video game platform. "The 1,000 included games seems generous" and "You do get those 1,000 games but these are essentially free anyway", so why would those sources be okay to keep the article, but not to delete it? But we're not discussing the ZX Spectrum, it's about World of Spectrum. The sources listed at WP:VG/RS (and the custom Google search engine) are not "present-day gaming press"; not just present, and certainly not exclusively video game journalism (including general technology and computing websites like Wired, Ars Technica and CNET). When you look up "zx spectrum", you get plenty of results that discuss the computer. If World of Spectrum would be of note, it would get more hits. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • If you enclose the words "World of Spectrum" in quotes, there are a lot of hits. They may mostly be "in passing", but that is to expected about a web site about a 1982 computer that was for the most part, only available in Europe (with most being sold in the UK). If a Wikipedia page about "World of Spectrum" is not considered important, why has there been an entry on Wikipedia since 31 December 2006‎? The Wikipedia entry about the computer itself, the ZX Spectrum makes reference to the World of Spectrum web site [1]. Further if you search Wikipedia for "World of Spectrum" there are many thousands of hits. It would be rather strange to to have all these references to "World of Spectrum" but not have an entry telling readers what "World of Spectrum" is. I'm sure there are other more suitable source references, but a quick search on a search engine will be swamped by other results and finding references in traditional paper based written media is rather harder as in areas like this most modern communication is on the internet, but not necessarily indexed by search engines. As to Lemon64 and the rest, the relevant question is why do they not have a Wikipedia entry. Maybe they should have entries. There is an entry about Blake's 7, a TV show that was made between 1978 and 1981 for broadcast on the BBC UK TV service. So why should Lemon64 be missing? 1024MAK ( talk) 09:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  1. ^ World of Spectrum
Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's guidelines on the deletion process. WP: LONGTIME and WP: OTHERSTUFF are both not arguments. The fact that they're only in passing is the whole point, the website needs to be notable by itself, not because it writes about a notable subject. And again, we're not discussing the ZX Spectrum, but World of Spectrum. There is no reason why a source used on Wikipedia would need its own article either. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • There are thousands of hits for World of Spectrum on wikipedia because a few people made thousands of edits to add the 'wos template' for video games. This template was also reviewed for deletion which it narrowly avoided. Just because one or two World of Spectrum supporters have been very busy here does not make the site notable.
If you are "sure there are other more suitable source references" then this is your opportunity to present them. MrMajors ( talk) 10:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Yeah, sadly spot on.... "The community that built the largest encyclopedia in history is shrinking," ...we (or the deletionist authors who are left) seem to be now more focused on "consolidating" the vision of a pure encyclopedia by enforcing arbitrary policies (like this infamous "significant coverage" policy) instead of the creation valuable content or motivating new authors by better structures. In this process we carelessly repel the last positively motivated authors and all newbies. In the last AfD I was involved a whole community was repelled, without need, it was scary. :/ Shaddim ( talk) 13:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Shaddim:, frankly I expected more from a more experienced user like yourself, but I have to remind you as well to stick to the actual discussion! This page is for discussing World of Spectrum only, not to lament Wikipedia's changing nature. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 16:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Please stick to the actual discussion, @ 1024MAK:. While you're saying you need more time, you do seem to have time enough to "research Wikipedia". With an article like that, you're just wasting your own and our time. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

"*"delete. The lies you are allowing to be published regarding the commercial status are damaging to the reputation of WoS and the agreements we have spent 20yrs getting from copyright holders. Fogartylee ( talk) 11:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

We're not discussing the content of the article, @ Fogartylee:, but the article itself. Any inaccuracies can be addressed, assuming what you're saying is true. You can also edit the article in the meantime. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Soetermans: Except I can't because I am the site owner... And when I did try to amend it, the vandal puts it back and complains.

Fogartylee, I think you're getting confused between 'lies' and 'facts you don't agree with'. You do not own the site according to ICANN. The commercial connections have clearly been identified and cited on the article, even van der Heide referred to the shop as "our own team's". As for your agreements with copyright holders, where are they? Have you deleted them because they were all addressed to "Martijn van der Heide" and you don't actually have any permission to distribute anything? MrMajors ( talk) 12:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
That's an interesting point, I have to admit. If a developer gives permission for distribution to WoS - is he giving permission to the site, or to the owner of the site? And what happens if the site changes ownership? It's not unreasonable to assume that emails were addressed to Martijn as a person rather than to WoS as an entity, but does that mean permission was only granted to Martijn to distribute via WoS? I bet lawyers love this stuff. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 12:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Chaheel Riens: Firstly, the site wasn't mirrored. It changed ownership. If I turn the site off, it no longer exists. Secondly, Martijn and I had a discussion years ago regarding the emails, and we decided they had to be taken down because we were getting complaints from copyright holders of abuse and spam - most noticeably with companies or individuals that had denied access then receiving emails demanding they change their mind. Given the trouble Majors has been causing, you can see why I wouldn't want him having access to the list! Regarding the permissions - they are all for World of Spectrum and not to Martijn - in the majority of cases, the emails are addressed to others - and one person in particular, because he did the work in contacting these people. As for the links to the shop - the preservation team have provided the majority of the titles to WoS, but they aren't WoS. Wikipedia has many links to shops but I doubt they get any money from them. Majors knows full well that WoS isn't commercial and doesn't even take donations. Fogartylee ( talk) 13:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

I agree - I'm not wasting time editing thousands of emails to please a pedant on here. Delete them if you wish Fogartylee ( talk) 14:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete While yes the site was mentioned in the links given earlier by Iridescent, these were passing mentions and not a sign of notability, as in [[WP:GNG} "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The mentions in the sources earlier appear to be trivial. RickinBaltimore ( talk) 15:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and redirect to ZX_Spectrum#Copying_and_backup. Getting some outside traction on Twitter related to Fogarty stepping down, so this discussion is becoming a proxy. I see a few things confused here: (1) the Wikipedia article on WoS, (2) the current management of WoS, and (3) the legacy of WoS. We're here for the former and not the latter. Wikipedia is interested in, simply, whether enough coverage exists in multiple reliable, independent sources such to write an article on the subject without entirely relying on primary/self-published materials. It is clear from the above that we are currently lacking in sources on WoS—articles about the website/database/community, etc., anything more than passing mentions, really. In that case, we don't have enough to write an article. WoS is mentioned in those passing mentions as important to the Spectrum fan community, so the title would be a useful redirect to its mention in the section on ZX Spectrum, which could really use its own section on Spectrum fandom, if you can find sources. For editors in this conversation new to Wikipedia, welcome, but please stay on topic—this discussion is about whether sources exist to write an article on World of Spectrum. Please take other conversations elsewhere. czar 19:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I found coverage in Handbook of Digital Games, published by John Wiley & Sons. There's also this magazine archived at archive.org, but it's in Spanish, and I can't figure out what it's talking about. However, if you search for "world of spectrum", there are several hits in this issue. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 03:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply

MrMajors was banned from the wos forums for joining and not posting - not in itself a banning offence. He was however taking selected screenshots to send to others to cause trouble. He is on twitter and has made 14 posts in total - all attacking me or WoS. https://twitter.com/majorrobbb His contribution to wikipedia has been 1 game, and all of the rest have been to vandalise the WoS page. Finally, he has claimed to not know who Martijn is - anyone that knows anything about WoS knows Martijn, and if as he claims, he doesn't then he has no knowledge of the subject he is editing. We have his IP address from the forums, and it matches a known troublemaker Fogartylee ( talk) 15:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply

You still don't seem to have grasped the point of this discussion. MrMajors ( talk) 16:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete Fails WP:DEPTH, WP:PERSISTENCE; unlike Jet Set Willy of course which represented the peak of our civilization... Muffled Pocketed 07:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Being referenced is not "significant coverage" by reliable third-parties. What has the site 'influenced'? The sources given by User:NinjaRobotPirate are weak as one is in Spanish: as NinjaRobotPirate says "I can't figure out what it's talking about". The Handbook of Digital Gaming uses the words "self-proclaimed" and "self-identified" when describing the site and the only sources cited by the book are an interview with site owner Martijn van der Heide in 2012 and a pdf about the tzx format from the site itself. MrMajors ( talk) 10:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • "*Being referenced is not "significant coverage" by reliable third-parties." Because you say so? It is exactly that, being referenced is coverage. ("significant" is always highly subjective and not properly defined in our polices) "are weak as one is in Spanish" Not at all! A different language weakens not at all the quality of an ref, vice versa it show the reach far beyond the English speaking world. Wikipedia should represent the situation world wide not only in the English language one. "he site and the only sources cited by the book" it doesn't matter what the book cites, this is a secondary source which discusses in detail the topic. Shaddim ( talk) 13:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC) reply
This is a totaly different request than the unfounded blame "weak source". Shaddim ( talk) 15:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC) reply
No it isn't. NinjaRobotPirate cited a source to support the notabilty of the site purely because it contains the text "world of spectrum" while claiming they "can't figure out what it's talking about". The source, as presented by NinjaRobotPirate, is weak. MrMajors ( talk) 17:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC) reply
the source is maybe not translated or evaluated, but not per se "weak". You used weak in conjunction with spanish, which was a improper argumentationm as spanish sources are not weaker (or stronger) than english one. Shaddim ( talk) 20:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Perhaps I should have said "The sources given by NinjaRobotPirate are not helpful" then. The source is self-published, and does not actually mention world of spectrum other than once in passing and once as a url so it can't be claimed as "significant coverage" or a "reliable source" anyway. MrMajors ( talk) 20:55, 9 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  09:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Physics Plot

Physics Plot (  | 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 software product tagged since June 2008. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 19:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:17, 6 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. Euryalus ( talk) 06:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Peter McMahon

Peter McMahon (  | 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. Fails WP:GNG (lack of significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (no appearances in a fully-professional league). Giant Snowman 18:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick •  t •  c •  s 08:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick •  t •  c •  s 08:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick •  t •  c •  s 08:52, 7 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. No consensus after minimal participation and two relistings. No prejudice against speedy renomination ( WP:NPASR). MelanieN ( talk) 23:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Freewire

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

Not necessarily factual and cannot find any sources after 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheUSConservative ( talk • contribs) 17:38, 8 June 2016‎

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

Note: This article was originally PRODed on the grounds that it was hopelessly out of date. The PROD went the full seven days without challenge and the article became deletable. The PRODer also created this AfD at about the same time (probably due to inexperience as it is a fairly recent account). It is my belief that TheUSConservative blanked this AfD having realised it was superfluoous. The AfD was reinstated and the PROD deleted by someone else on the grounds that an AfD is in place.

This article should be deleted because the PROD ran its course unchallenged. --Elektrik Fanne 11:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Admins do not delete PRODs just because they sat for 7 days and no one objected. Admins only delete where there is a valid reason to delete an article. In this case the PROD reason was that the article hadn't been updated in 2 years, that is a reason to edit the article not delete it. The removal of the PROD was correct. --  GB  fan 17:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply
@ GB fan:That was not the reason given for the deletion of the PROD. However valid your reasoning is, the given reason for deleting the PROD was not valid (that an AfD had been inadvertently created by an inexperienced editor). --Elektrik Fanne 10:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Actually there is no invalid reason to remove a prod. A prod can be removed for any reason or no reason at all. --  GB  fan 11:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 16:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment most of the content I'm seeing on Google News has nothing to do with the UK media company described in the article, but rather with a US-based startup. It seems to be that there are multiple different companies, and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not appear to suggest that the one the article currently discusses should be the first thing a reader sees. Jclemens ( talk) 17:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete it seems at best because my searches have found nothing particularly better, there's also then nothing else convincing for the noticeably needed notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep clearly notably at one point, there's tons of articles from reliable sources from the 2000's about the IPTV service. Just because it hasn't made news lately doesn't mean the article should be deleted. Needs updating, sure, but deletion seems like an overreach. Maybe even needs to become a disambiguation page because of the other US-based Freewire company. But deletion? No. LAroboGuy ( talk) 21:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete cannot find anything on if it's even a company anymore. We cannot factually update the article and it's notability now is in question and it's factuality could be compromised. TheUSConservative ( talk) 17:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Striking this "delete" !vote; as nominator your "delete" !vote is already counted. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens ( talk) 15:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Euryalus ( talk) 06:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Mark S. Guralnick

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

Highly promotional bio with indication of notability per WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. Recently speedied db-G11, and it's only just this side of G11 now. He's a lawyer, and he's written some books: neither automatically confers notability. Sources are all WP:Primary, with no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by anonymous editor. OnionRing ( talk) 15:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. OnionRing ( talk) 15:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. OnionRing ( talk) 15:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. OnionRing ( talk) 15:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, in addition article reads a bit too promotional for me. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG. Being a lawyer and an author does not automatically make him notable. ubiquity ( talk) 14:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete If the book was as widely important as suggested it would get coverage beyond one minor mention in a state level oil industry publication. So we can not even establish notability for his law book on facking. Establishing that he is notable for writing it, which seems to be the goal of the article would require us to have either widespread quoting from him on fracking in publications, or his work being quoted enough by others to show he is a leading expert on law as it relates to fracking. We do not have these, and until we do we have no reason to think he is notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete There are faint whiffs of notability, but the coverage doesn't support a claim. The article as it exists comes off a bit promotional. It might be possible to improve the sourcing to support the claim, but I haven't found anything that would meet the standard. Alansohn ( talk) 18:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and Salt temporarily at best (although locking entirely would be best as it may simply be restarted once the salt ends); my searches and examinations have found nothing actually better and, with there being nothing else actually minimally convincing, delete is best. SwisterTwister talk 00:35, 13 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. The sense of the discussion was that the subject has not been covered in independent, reliable sources sufficiently to establish his notability. The coverage that was identified has been repudiated by the participants as a whole. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply

John L. Furth

John L. Furth (  | 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 originally started as a draft and was declined, but an uninvolved editor came in and created the article (so no GAMING). I am, however, not convinced that Furth meets GNG; three of the four references are from either primary or non- RS sources, and the fourth is what appears to be a local charity giving out an award (so mostly not primary?). The only sources I can find online about Furth are directly connected to him or just brief mentions (usually about the endowments he's given).

All in all, a man with money to spend is not inherently notable. Primefac ( talk) 15:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Snow Keep 21:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC) I just created the Furth BLP yesterday after researching the man's notability. The BLP I created is separate and apart from the draft started by Furth's relative; however, I did extend an invitation to that editor for input which is the polite thing to do. I had a brief discussion with Robert McClenon here and am actively working to expand the article, which actually inspired another BLP I'm in the process of creating. I also just began recruiting other editors for collaboration. Under the circumstances, it would be very kind and thoughtful of you to close this RfD and allow me to complete my work expanding this BLP instead of wasting valuable editing time. GNG guidelines do not exclude philanthropy or the notable work one does to accomplish good things on a grand scale. Furth's notability is not just being a successful businessman and philanthropist, he also co-authored a book, and is the founder of Warburg Pincus Private Client Group which in 1999 was merged into Credit Suisse. [12] Atsme 📞 📧 16:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Note for closer - I felt it was important to respectfully mention that the editor who filed this AfD made reference to Draft:John L Furth which was submitted by a newbie editor and family member of the subject, Aroger0821. It was his first ever submission and was rejected twice for obvious reasons. The article subject of this AfD is an entirely new article I created about the same subject, John L. Furth, who is unmistakably notable as a philanthropist and business leader who has served as chairman and vice chairman of highly notable investment firms, universities and hospitals. The basis of this AfD is actually a disagreement over some of the sources that were cited which creates an issue weighted more for RS/N than AfD. Thank you in advance for your time in reviewing this filing. Atsme 📞 📧 17:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply
I mentioned the Draft only because it was relevant to how I came across the Article. I specifically mentioned that you were uninvolved with the original page and created a new one from scratch. I'm not sure how you "respectfully" restating my original nomination makes any difference to how this is closed. If anything, it reads to me like an attempt at discrediting me somehow and/or trying to get a procedural close out of it. As an aside, for someone who has so little time to spend on the subject, you certainly seem to have come up with an awful lot of excuses to post on this AFD. Primefac ( talk) 02:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply
GNG says nothing about what a person does, but it requires certain levels of coverage in media to demonstrate notability. I looked for such sources and I was unconvinced, though I am happy to be proven wrong. Primefac ( talk) 16:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
A BLP doesn't have to be high profile to be notable - they can be low profile and still be highly notable such as the following:
  • created the John and Hope Furth Professorship of Psychiatric Neuroscience at Yale with a $3 million endowment,
  • created The John L. and Hope L. Furth Endowment for the Smithsonian Libraries in 2005 with an unrestricted fund to enhance educational programs and professional training,my bold 21:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • funded important scientific research which has resulted in numerous recognitions in high quality journals for his contributions including The NY Academy of Sciences wherein it states: S.J. gratefully acknowledges the generosity of Mr. and Mrs. John L. Furth and of Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth S. Hackel, who made this work possible." I consider the funding of scientific research as notable as the research itself.
  • He is a Trustee Emeritus of Barnard College,
  • He is a Trustee and Assistant Treasurer of the Foundation for Child Development,
  • He is a Trustee and former Chairman of Blythedale Children's Hospital,
  • He was awarded The Herbert H. Lehman Award by the American Jewish Committee,
  • He has a highly notable business profile, otherwise he wouldn't be making such notable contributions to science and education.
  • Adding more notability as stub is developed during this AfD 21:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC) He was board chairman for E.M. Warburg Pincus & Co. (1970—1999), and held various other leadership positions for affiliates.
I simply don't understand how his notability even comes into question. Everything the man has accomplished is verifiable in high quality sources such as the Smithsonian and Yale University as well as other academic sources. This really is a time sink. Atsme 📞 📧 19:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Because Wikipedia uses a LITERAL definition of notability - I.E. have others outside his circle of influence taken note of him? — Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
( edit conflict) I could give money to six of my friends, they could do awesome things with it, but I would not be the notable one. There needs to be coverage about the person to meet GNG. As I said earlier, being generous does not necessarily make a person notable (by Wikipedia's standards). Primefac ( talk) 19:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • comment - to consider a professorship named in one's honor not notable or that verifiability of one's accomplishments in a Smithsonian article or Yale article is unreliable tells me we have a serious problem that needs a great deal more attention than this AfD will allow. Yet we consider the academic notable for far less? It doesn't make sense. Being a successful leader in business IS notable according to both GNG and BLP, and Furth meets the requirements. I've provided RS that pass the acid test for verifiability. It doesn't have to be the New York Times, however, there is an article in the New York Post. Self-published sources are also acceptable, particularly for philanthropists and other low-profile notables. So in one breath we're saying you need to cite academic sources, and in another breath we're saying academic sources aren't reliable. Now that's a head-scratcher. ??? Atsme 📞 📧 21:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
I honestly can't find these RS you're talking about. Primefac ( talk) 15:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Look at the article - the stub I'm trying to expand. The RS are there. Also check this out Wikipedia:Do_not_confuse_stub_status_with_non-notability. Atsme 📞 📧 00:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
update the article is now start class with almost every sentence sourced to a RS ranging from the New York Post, Smithsonian Libraries, Yale School of Medicine, Irving Daily News (citing & expanding on NYTimes review), company bios, etc. and it is still a work in progress. Atsme 📞 📧 01:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Inflation. 😆 Readers will learn more about the man's notability by reading the article. For example, he is on the Development Board for Yale University and also serves on the Yale Tomorrow Executive Committee for their Capital Fund Campaign, so the article is not just about the $3 million professorship which actually resulted in a 2nd article about a female doctor/scientist/researcher who became the inaugural Furth professor. I can't understand why the delete voters are having issues recognizing Furth's notability but it may be because they're judging a stub instead of giving the article a chance to breathe. The man has achieved great things and his bio belongs in WP, especially considering what all he has done/is doing for education and research. Atsme 📞 📧 01:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Snow Keep: But needs additional sourcing -- sheesh, AfD less than 24 hours after creation? Absurd and POINT-y. Clearly notable as a philanthrophist. Instead of sucking all the oxygen from the room with an AfD debate, let's give the editors a few weeks to expand the article. Classic case of WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. Montanabw (talk) 06:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
    Comment - Less than 24 hours after creation is a perfectly good time to AFD an article. If a subject isn't notable, why leave them in mainspace any longer? This is not a !vote either way, but immediately after creation is a perfectly good time for AFD and is not pointy. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
    Immediately after creation is a lousy time as the article is still basically a draft. Not everyone sandboxes articles before creating them, particularly when there is a time crunch. Obviously if there is a CSD that fits, that's different, but if it's not a CSD case, than what harm exists in slapping on a notability tag and giving an editor a week or so to fix it? Seriously, it isn't going to "brake teh wiki." Montanabw (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Montanabw, this was a draft (declined twice) before it was an article. Voters have as much priority to read the nomination BEFORE !voting as the person making the nomination, as I stated this fact. Primefac ( talk) 13:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
I did, Primefac, don't be a jerk and accuse other people of things that are not true. We have multiple neutral, third-party sources here, and though the article still needs work, it meets WP:GNG. Montanabw (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • comment Montanabw, the draft deserved to be declined.But this is a new BLP that I created from scratch. 21:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC) In fact, I was discussing another topic on the TP of Robert McClenon and saw the post by a relative of Furth. The submission was poorly written which is understandable in some newbie cases but it aroused my curiosity to see who Furth was and if anything could be done that would prove helpful. See my post above with the link to that discussion. Primefac, it would be much appreciated if you would refrain from comparing the new BLP I created to a declined draft submitted by a newbie. It is a totally different submission. Atsme 📞 📧 17:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The article is full of primary sources, many of which are site bios or statements that he's now at this or that company, none of which establish notability. I looked but couldn't find secondary sources discussing the subject in-depth. Therefore, the subject doesn't meet WP:GNG and the article should be deleted. Ca2james ( talk) 02:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • comment - to what primary sources are you referring as the article being "full of"?
  1. The university of which he is a trustee (primary)
  2. The institution to which he gave money (not independent)
  3. A review of his book, though book reviews don't often impart much onto the author. Correct me if I'm wrong, of course.
  4. A review for his book (a blog/unreliable)
  5. See #2
  6. See #2
  7. The company he works for (primary/not independent)
  8. A generic Bloomberg listing (not usable for notability)
  9. A reasonable source
  10. See #3
  11. An SEC listing, which I'm pretty sure is primary, and even if not it only verifies facts (i.e. brief mention)
  12. This is from a reliable source, but it's just a generic "he's going from X to Y company" and doesn't actually talk about him in any great detail. Good for verification, not so good for notability.
  13. See #1
  14. Duplicate of #9
  15. Name drop/brief mention, again good for verification but not for notability. Also, pretty sure it's a primary source.
Did I miss anything? Primefac ( talk) 19:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Yes, you missed the definition of WP:Primary not to mention sources that ARE ALLOWED IN A BLP for low-key notables. Yale is an article published in an ACADEMIC SOURCE and in combination with Smithsonian both are high quality sources. Both have published articles not primary documents as would be an actual lawsuit filed in the court. Perhaps they are not independent, but there acceptable for low-key notables as are self-published sources. Atsme 📞 📧 19:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC) reply
You also missed that he's an author in addition to being notable for his work and contributions to major, highly notable institutions like Yale and Smithsonian, not to mention the hospitals. This BLP is clearly a SNOW KEEP or I would not have invested the work in it. I have far better things to do with my time, as I'm sure you do as well. 20:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Primary sources can be RS but cannot be used to establish notability. Notability requires multiple significant mentions in independent RS, and that is what is lacking here. Ca2james ( talk) 21:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC) reply
I disagree, Ca2james, there are multiple sources that are independent of the subject: I went through and tightened up the article and reviewed the source material. There are multiple sources independent of the subject, notably what currently are footnotes 4, 6, 7, 9 and 12. The others have some direct connection to the individual but as such are fine because they verify the data that they source. This is more than adequate to meet GNG. Montanabw (talk) 23:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The current version definitely reads better. The sources have to not just be independent of the subject but also give significant mentions. Footnotes 4 and 9 are not significant mentions of him as this person moving to that company isn't a significant mention. 12 is from a blog; even if it wasn't a blog, it's about the book, not the author, who is mentioned only in passing - which is the same problem that 7 and 9 have (from what I can tell as I don't have a newspapers.com account). 7, 9, and 12 indicate that the book is notable but that does not automatically mean that its author is also notable because notability is not WP:INHERITED. Ca2james ( talk) 23:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The blog about the book cites the NYTimes review. It's a 3rd party source citing a 2nd party source. This really is a time sink and needs to be closed. Atsme 📞 📧 02:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply
You are welcome to stop commenting on this discussion, Atsme (though BLUDGEON comes to mind). As a point of note, I'm pretty sure SNOW closes are for when there is no opposition, and simply saying it should be a snow close does not mean it is a snow close. I'll look through the new sources (probably tomorrow) and re-evaluate my opinion on the matter (who knows, you might actually convince me per WP:HEY). Primefac ( talk) 03:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply
You are incorrect. WP:Snow Close - The snowball clause is designed to prevent editors from getting tangled up in long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic discussions over things that are foregone conclusions from the start. It describes this AfD from inception. Atsme 📞 📧 03:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply
But this is not a foregone conclusion; there's arguments on each side. SNOW is thus inappropriate here. — Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 18:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply
His notability has been established in independent sources. The rest is nothing more than an argument about the articles published by the Yale School of Medicine which actually verify the information published in the Smithsonian which verify the Yale articles PLUS there are the following independent sources:
Also see my following comment. Atsme 📞 📧 20:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • comment - (and hopefully the last) regarding secondary sources used in this BLP which are being referred to as primary or not independent, therefore claimed to be unacceptable for the man's notability. See Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources (my bold underline for emphasis): Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research. Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences. A book review too can be an opinion, summary or scholarly review. Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source. So again, our PAGs indicate this AfD to be a candidate for a Snow Close. Atsme 📞 📧 17:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply
I'll harken back to my earlier comment with regard to giving my six best friends a ton of money: they will of course tell good things about me to their friends.
It is obvious that Yale and the Smithsonian will include biographies about Furth; he gave them money. This is the crux of everyone's non-independent argument. WP:42 even has "independent" in bold highlights. So yes, we are making the claim that these sources do not demonstrate his notability, specifically because they are not independent of the subject. Primefac ( talk) 02:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete instead as I'm still not seeing any actual confident signs of his own notability; had he obtained something noticeably notable and convincing, I would've said otherwise but I'm not seeing it. SwisterTwister talk 00:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
*The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.
*The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field
Furth meets either or both those qualifications as (1) an author, (2) someone whose contributions are widely recognized such as The John L. and Hope L. Furth Endowment, Smithsonian Libraries, and The John and Hope Furth Professorship of Psychiatric Neuroscience, Yale School of Medicine, and (3) recipient of the Herbert H. Lehman Award, not to mention his notability as a business leader as described in the article. Atsme 📞 📧 16:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Being an author of books published 40 years ago and not mentioned since then is not "[making] a widely recognized contributiuon that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". If he *was* notable as an author, then WP:AUTHOR would apply, but none of the sources listed above indicate that he meets any of the four notability criteria. Even if endowments qualified as part of an enduring historical record (which, at $3M, they don't), there are no independent sources discussing those endowments as has been shown above. It isn't enough that he's given money to people or whatever; independent sources need to be making significant mentions of him giving money to people or whatever. Furth might be noted in the real world but he is not notable on Wikipedia. Ca2james ( talk) 23:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Atsme has been asking me questions on my talk p. bearing on this discussion, so I thought I;d comment directly. I do not think that giving money to charities is notable, unless the amount is very large, or the prominence very great. Endowing a scholarship just takes a few million dollars; the importance of the organization given the money is irrelevant.. Being a member of multiple boards of directors typically means one had money and connections, neither of which implies encyclopedic notability in most cases. They often come as a result of a 1notable career, but its the career which would be Now, there are exceptions. Someone extremely wealthy is usually notable , and there is probably a line beyond which they can be presumed to be notable--a net worth of more than $ several billion might be realistic (5 years ago I might have said $1 billion, but things have changed at that end of the financial spectrum.
Additionally, the writing is promotional and in some aspects questionable: The The Herbert H. Lehman Award is linked, implying it is a notable award. It is not necessarily--there is no actual article on it, the link goes to Herbert A Lehman, and the article on him doesn't even mention the existence of the award in his honor. A statement he made when he was given an award is quoted in support of his cause, as is astatment of hisaboutthe importance of the smithsonian Library. Neither of these is remotely encyclopedic content. DGG ( talk ) 09:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply
DGG I started that TP discussion with you for one purpose only - to help me understand some issues I found puzzling. It was certainly not intended to bring you to this AfD which is why I did not mention a specific subject and attempted to keep my questions general. You basically assumed that this was the article in question, and while some of my questions may be related it actually had as much to do with several Notability RfCs as it has to do with this article. While I agree with you on some aspects of it, I disagree in others, specifically about the amount of money necessary to make someone "notable". I firmly believe - and with good reason - that the purpose of one's philanthropy is far more important and notable than the amount of it, especially with regards to determining one's notability. The worthiness and purpose of an endowment is far more important than the amount of money that created it, and the former is what editors should glean from the content of cited sources along with the number of cited sources, not the WORTH of the philanthropy, endowment or the subject's financial worth. To put a dollar amount on notable contributions is absurb, and diminishes the worth of the professorship and other endowments that serve humanity. Atsme 📞 📧 17:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Still none of this suggests the needed confident substance for his own notability, examining this myself found nothing actually convincing, there's no inherited notability from those other groups and financial activities. SwisterTwister talk 18:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply
I think you already !voted above ST? Alexbrn ( talk) 18:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply

comment - a Furth professorship awarded by Yale School of Medicine is academic in nature and also notable. I fail to see how the notable act of humanity that established the Furth professorship is promotional, but then I've had similar discussions with the same 3 editors who have tried to get my work deleted in the past for similar reasons. At least there's consistency in their showing up where I'm involved. Perhaps it's a show of Wikilove...at least that's what I'd like to think. Atsme 📞 📧 20:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply

The Professorship and its holders will be notable. Just providing the money for the position is not, any more than the development officer who (presumably) coordinated the gift or the attorney who prepared the documents.
It is true I have commented adversely on a number of this editor's articles. My current activity at WP is primarily removing promotional articles, and it is therefore inevitable that I will argue for the deletion of the articles of those who write them. DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Well thank you for your admission, DGG but based on your perspective of "promotional" your argument rests on an editor's determination of a financial amount rather than the notability of the deed which is determined by cited sources. Editors should not be burdened with assessing notability based on monetary values attached to endowments that earn honorary titles because there are instances when notable people and institutions don't want those amounts disclosed. You stated above that "I do not think that giving money to charities is notable, unless the amount is very large,". I find that very concerning because it conflicts with our PAGs. Editors should not judge notability on monetary worth - it should be determined by the weight given to it in the cited RS. Atsme 📞 📧 01:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
You keep talking about the weight given to the cited RS, but (as mentioned ad nauseam) most of those sources you give are not independent; if I gave the Smithsonian $3m tomorrow, they would probably put up a bio about me as well; it does not make me a notable individual. Now if Forbes or the NYT wrote a piece about Furth and said "look at all this money he's giving to people" we'd be having a completely different discussion. Primefac ( talk) 02:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
I note I was unable to find any information about his actual wealth,and the one relevant comment I could find is that one of his gifts was listed as over $1 million, but not a leadership gift where their criterion for Leadership gifts seems to be $20 million. I was hoping to find something that would justify notability . a person can be notable because of standing in the highest rank of whatever it is they are important for, and one of those possibilities is wealth. In philanthropy, which tends to be correlated, it is the amount given in terms of the standards of the time. But this is how I judge notability in this respect, not how I judge promotionalism . Emphasizing minor matters of any sort is part of the basis for concluding its promotional editing. DGG ( talk ) 02:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
DGG, there was one over $3 million, another that was unrestricted, and there are a substantial amount of others he contributes to on a regular basis. I thank you for your efforts but philanthropy regarding this BLP should not be judged only on "recentism" as Furth has been involved in philanthropy for over 40 years. It would be wrong to discount the many years he has been actively involved contributing large sums of money and donating substantial amounts of his time to further humanity, research & education. Long standing philanthropy should not be determined by the monetary values we see today as you suggested because the monetary worth of a gift given in the 1950s-1960s would not have the same value or significance as that same amount would have today. In 1970, $1 million would be worth over $6 million today. His philanthropic notability should be measured over time which is verifiable in RS, and further verified by reports in primary sources which are acceptable for such use. I have not totaled his monetary contributions over the past 40 years because I considered his notability was on the line of "the sky is blue" so when I created the stub, I cited his most recent activity, not his life's contributions as a philanthropist. Low key notability also applies in this case because of the nature of philanthropy. As I already mentioned, his notability is long term, and should not be measured on the monetary value of a single gift but on the gifts he has given long term and the substance of his humanitarian deeds as verified in RS. I don't see Furth's philanthropy as "promotion" rather I see his notability as a lifetime of low-key gifts to further humanity which is verifiable in the RS I cited; therefore, the very nature of his philanthropy is contrary to your claim of "promotional". Also, considering this AfD was initiated within a day or two of publishing, it is highly discouraging for any editor to want to work to expand it because these AfDs are time sinks and completely dependent on the closing admin. I can only hope and maintain faith that in this case, the closing admin will carefully consider the weight of the arguments and not make a determination based on the number of !votes. Keeping this BLP and allowing me an opportunity to expand it will not break the Wiki. Atsme 📞 📧 04:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
In 2009, he was one of a handful of $1 million to $4,999,999.00 donors to Blythedale Childrens Hospital Journey of Hope Society as verified on page 8 here which documents just one of his many philanthropic donations to humanity, particularly children. 04:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Katie talk 11:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Vietnam women's national under-17 football team

Vietnam women's national under-17 football team (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced and no evidence of notability for this youth team. Qed237  (talk) 20:21, 19 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 08:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 ( T) 15:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete instead as there's still nothing substantially convincing as its own article and the minimal information listed would be best listed elsewhere, especially the fact it's both unsourced and underpopulated. SwisterTwister talk 00:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:V we cannot have an article on a topic unless it has some coverage in third-party reliable sources. This article doesn't cite any, nobody here has cited any, and I could see any readily available. This applies regardless of whether the subject meets any notability guidelines. Hut 8.5 21:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This may be a case of WP:NEWBIE ? Has any looked at User talk:Usainnguyen. Perhaps we need to get someone who is fluent in English and Vietnamese to have a conversation with them ? Seems to be good faith stuff going on here but an almost complete lack of understanding ? Aoziwe ( talk) 14:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep U-17 teams are notable. Also there is some sources that this team does exist. For example here is the last match of qualifying for the team in the 2015 edition of AFC U-16 Championship. [14]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Possible merge can be discussed on the talk page, but it seems there is consensus to keep in this discussion. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 02:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Muesli belt malnutrition

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

one-off neologism Kintetsubuffalo ( talk) 15:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 15:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep/merge There are no new words here and the topic seems valid. It might be incorporated into some more general article such as high residue diet but that's ordinary editing, not deletion. Andrew D. ( talk) 11:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, can be referenced, a handful citations have been added, meets WP:GNG, and is not a "one-off" term judging from four decades of sources. Coined sometimes before 1988, it hardly a neologism either. Sam Sailor Talk! 18:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as there's seems to be enough convincing for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 00:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge, probably to fad diet. That there are "no new words" obviously doesn't mean it's not a neologism, but regardless there seem to be enough sources to merit including somewhere. The problem as far as it having its own article is that the sources I see using it do so as a catchall for "people trying to 'eat healthy' but not actually eating all that healthy". In other words, it's a neologism for a concept that, in use, isn't all that clearly defined as distinct from various other terms. It seems mainly focused on falling into health fads (no carbs, no fats, etc.), which is why I say fad diet. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:38, 13 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. Merging and other editorial concerns can be discussed on the talk page, but I believe that there is consensus to keep given the new sources presented here. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 02:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Traditionalist Youth Network

Traditionalist Youth Network (  | 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 only see coverage from advocacy groups (ADL and SPLC) and advocacy press (antifascistnews.net) which seem insufficient for controversial claims. Notability, given the absence of mainstream coverage, is also an issue. James J. Lambden ( talk) 01:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply

EDIT, Amended: Redirect Traditionalist Youth Network and White Student Union (Towson University) to Matthew Heimbach. James J. Lambden ( talk) 20:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete SPLC is not sufficiently reliable to warrant an article. Not everything they ever mention deserves an article. It's 4 SPLC articles (POV rants), a primary source, and one ADL source. Not good enough to meet WP:GNG. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{ re}} | talk | contribs) 11:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
See links below to Al-Jazeera America and AP/Business Insider. Carrite ( talk) 16:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The AP article contains one sentence of significant coverage about the topic, but this one sentence must be discounted because it is sourced to the SPLC.  Likewise, the minimal significant coverage in the Al-Jazerra article is sourced to the primary web site.  There is evidence of direct WP:N notability in a caption that identifies Heimbach as the founder of the topic.  I see nothing in either article to help write a NPOV article.  Unscintillating ( talk) 02:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Thanks, both good articles but Traditionalist Youth Network isn't the primary subject of either - Heimbach is - suggesting an article on Heimbach (with a section on Traditionalist Youth Network) would be more appropriate. Would you say an article on both is warranted and can you list your other sources? James J. Lambden ( talk) 23:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Here are some articles that focus primarily on TYN: They initially planned a "Koran BBQ" but subsequently changed the focus of the event to supporting Bashar Assad, they called for hate crimes charges in a Cincinnati beating, and they posted controversial recruitment posters at Appalachian State University. I definitely think Heimbach has been covered enough in reliable sources to potentially have his own article. By the way, White Student Union (Towson University) was also founded by him. I'm honestly not sure what the best strategy is for covering the ever-expanding list of organizations and topics he's affiliated with; the WSU, the TYN, the TWP, and now the Sacramento riots. Having articles about all of them might be a bit too much. Any thoughts? FiredanceThroughTheNight ( talk) 04:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Good finds. So we have Traditionalist Youth Network, White Student Union (Towson University) and Matthew Heimbach - all potentially notable but I don't think sufficiently notable to warrant multiple articles. Since Heimbach is the common thread my preference would be an article on Heimbach with sections on and redirects from the organizations. I'll amend my vote. James J. Lambden ( talk) 20:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Can the above voters explain whether their votes are based on the existing sources or on potential sources (and if so which ones?) James J. Lambden ( talk) 23:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The ADL and the SPLC's extensive coverage (already cited in the article) is good enough for me. These are full-scale profiles, not passing mentions; both groups are well-known and respected for tracking extremist movements in the U.S. (The nominators' characterization of these groups as "advocacy groups" and another editor's characterization of the SPLC coverage as "POV rants" is silly, to put it mildly.) There is other coverage of this group and its (odious) activities not currently cited that confirms its notability for me; the group's picketing of a leftist bookstore in Indiana received coverage from WFHB (see here) and from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (see here). Neutrality talk 23:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
See my modified vote above. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{ re}} talk | contribs) 05:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 06:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 06:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and possibly redirect to White Student Union (Towson University)  The SPLC is known for its opinionated viewpoints, and its opinions are only reliable as viewpoints of the SPLC.  While such material adds to WP:GNG notability, our articles require sufficient material to satisfy our core policy WP:NPOV.  The current article shows severe policy problems, such as the second of the two sentences in the lede, which reads, "Established in 2013, the group promotes a racist interpretation of Christianity."  2013 is recent enough that there is no urgency on covering the topic in the encyclopedia (WP:TOOSOON, WP:SUSTAINED).  The comment about Christianity is written in Wikipedia's voice, has no citation, and is not explained later in the article.  As an extraordinary claim, WP:V requires that this claim have extraordinary sources, and I seem to recall that WP:BLP can apply in this situation.  This sentence is displayed on Google after a search for ""Traditionalist Youth Network".  Here is another sentence from the current article, "<name redacted> is also a white supremacist."  There is no citation, and interestingly, the sentence is a WP:BLP violation for not one, but two people.  I saw nothing in the article about the size of the membership of the group, just that it has one chapter.  Meanwhile, a report this week from NBC News [15] cites the SPLC as that the group has ten chapters.  I also reviewed the discussion on the talk page, which shows that there is ongoing concern about how this topic is being covered.  Unscintillating ( talk) 02:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I philosophically believe in the lowest of possible notability bars for political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections without regard to size or ideology. This is the sort of information that a comprehensive encyclopedia should contain. This article is a little of all three. In this case, it is a pretty clear GNG pass beyond my own normative statement: see, for example, THIS article from Al-Jazeera America, "The Little Führer: A Day in the Life of the Newest Leader of White Nationalists" (on the group's leader) and THIS piece from the Associated Press, via Business Insider, "White Nationalists, Protesters Clash in California; 10 Hurt" (on the group's political party adjunct). Arguably too new of a group for three separate articles, but one article with redirects is more than worthy of encyclopedic coverage. GNG pass. Carrite ( talk) 16:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 ( T) 15:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • In the French article, the additions to WP:notability for this topic occur in the interview question number 1 and a little bit with question 5.  Question #1 and the primary material in the answer to #1 support your point that WSU is closely associated with TYN.  Unscintillating ( talk) 02:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Regarding using WSU, this might work.  The French article you cite above ends by saying (Google translate), "We look carefully at the political situation in the US and nationalist movements seem interesting."  The attention is going to US nationalist movements, not the biography of Heimbach.  The WSU article is more neutral than the current article.  Unscintillating ( talk) 13:38, 10 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. Euryalus ( talk) 13:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

LatexFashionTV

LatexFashionTV (  | 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 for notability. In my opinion not even an indication of significance, but A7 speedy was removed. DGG ( talk ) 03:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n( talk page) 13:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mar11 ( talk) 16:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mar11 ( talk) 16:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 ( T) 14:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete there does not seem to be much interest in this subject on wikipedia or the media, lack of mainstream coverage means WP:GNG is not passed. Atlantic306 ( talk) 02:10, 9 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. Euryalus ( talk) 13:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

FileCloud

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

Zero evidence of notability, but A7 declined. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n( talk page) 13:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 05:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 05:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 ( T) 14:59, 5 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. Other than a number of WP:SPA keep !votes, there is near unanimous consensus to delete. There is some feeling that a short mention of this in Benzodiazepine, Benzodiazepine dependence, or Benzodiazepine use disorder might be appropriate, but there is certainly no consensus for a full merge. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply

World Benzodiazepine Awareness Day


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

Not seeing sufficient notability Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 14:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 15:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

This is an internationally recognized day. July 11th will be the first W-BAD. How long do we have to fix the issues and what time of prove do you need or want to see in regards to this day's existence? 76.102.40.196 ( talk) 16:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Just because something has been cited still does not make it notable. I have been in multiple newspaper articles and on TV, however I am not notable. In addition please note the only edit MixieLove has ever made is to vote to keep this article. The only edits Da'locin has made is to this article and now this deletion conversation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viewmont Viking ( talk • contribs)
  • Comment Allow me to examine the sources:
  1. - Not a reliable source, this is the website that the day is using as a webhost
  2. - Questionable, I haven't heard of "Morning News USA" before, not sure if this would be considered a WP:RS
  3. - Link is to the bio of the doctor who's idea this is, not a WP:RS
  4. - See above
  5. - This might be a RS, covered in a local paper
  6. - The bill makes no mention of the day, rather it's legislation regarding the prescribing and use of benzos
  7. - Motion in Parliament, however I'm not sure what weight this carries
  8. - See #1
  9. - This is an article about the effect of benzos, not the day so this would not be a valid source
  10. - This is a BBC story from 2001, nothing about this day
  11. - See #9
  12. - This is guidance on how to prescribe benzos, against not about this day
  13. - See #10
  14. - See #10
  15. - See #1

So of the sources in the article, there's one that MAYBE a reliable source, one highly questionable, and a motion in Parliament, which I would need more info regarding if this imparts notability. The remaining are either not about the day or not sources that are valid. RickinBaltimore ( talk) 14:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Keep as a start or stub class article, notability is limited because it is very new - in the coming years I imagine that more reliable sources will emerge. I appreciate that the keep argument is not strong and it is reasonable to nominate the article for deletion discussion - if the outcome of this discussion is to delete then I think it should be a "delete and merge" reliable sourced material into the history section of the benzodiazepine dependence article. This day has enough notability to, at a minimum deserve a couple of sentences in an appropriate article.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k? 16:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Another one that we can cite that just came out yesterday: Oldham Chronicle Da'locin ( talk) 14:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply
I don't want to seem cold Christopher Aikman and am truly sorry to hear about your daughter, but Wikipedia's role is to simply reflect what independent reliable sources say about something, not to right great wrongs. In fact, Wikipedia is probably one of the last places people should be referring to for any kind of medical advice simply because it is by design an encyclopedia which can be edited by anyone anywhere in the world at anytime. The organization behind World Benzodiazepine Awareness Day will not have any final say or editorial control over what goes in the article per WP:OWN. Content which it adds to the article can literally be instantly altered or removed by someone else. So, there is no 100% guarantee of accuracy for anything posted in this article or on Wikipedia in general, and there's no real way to prevent any "misinformation" from being added to this article by either side of the argument at some point in time. For what it's worth, Wikipedia does not even consider itself to be a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly ( talk) 05:53, 11 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  08:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Lohan yoga

Lohan yoga (  | 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 Yoga variation. This was declined several times in Draft, before being copy pasted over, mainly for lack of references. Also Lohan Yoga was speedied as promo but I have no idea how this content differs. The only non-Primary references are about concepts not the subject itself. There does not seem to be a level of coverage to back up any claims of notability. Peter Rehse ( talk) 13:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 14:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Well I don't think you can call it a revival. It appears to be an amalgamation of two different things with a synthetic history. Peter Rehse ( talk) 20:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
True, was basing it on the second paragraph of the lead.-- ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 18:26, 8 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. Euryalus ( talk) 06:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Erik Pochanski

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

Speedy deletion per WP:G4 was declined on the grounds that he has now played in the Champions League. However, since his one appearance was in qualifying against a non-fully-pro-league club, this does not confer notability per WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 13:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 13:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep - I found it fair to keep the article. I see no point to delete it now and then I recreate it after a month, when he made his debut in First league or in Europa League agnist fully pro team. Also, he had matches agnist fully pro teams in the Bulgarian Cup. - Chris Calvin ( talk) 14:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Claims to notability based on potential future appearances have been consistently rejected in the past. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomislav Turčin and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baoringdao Bodo for recent examples.) His cup appearances against FPL-clubs were not for FPL-clubs and so do not qualify under WP:NSPORT either. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 14:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick •  t •  c •  s 08:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick •  t •  c •  s 08:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick •  t •  c •  s 08:50, 7 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. Although I acknowledge that a number of sources were provided as this debate wore on, an invitation for earlier contributors to rethink their views almost four days ago did not yield any changes to the consensus. As such, I am satisfied that the overall view is to delete. KaisaL ( talk) 22:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Jamie Gough (politician)

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

Politician who fails WP:NPOL - only served as a local city councillor. Doesn't appear to meet GNG, some local coverage but thats it Gbawden ( talk) 13:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 15:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 15:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 15:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep It's not mentioned in this article, but Gough has often been in the news for his drinking and poor behaviour. Suggest keep and expand with more information. Notable for being badly behaved while on council business?! MurielMary ( talk) 11:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Oh OK sorry I had no idea - the situation is covered in news stories such as this: The Press and this second article from The Press so I figured that it would be ok to include in an article. MurielMary ( talk) 11:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Including is not a problem in itself. But we usually go by WP:WEIGHT. Unless the crime has been covered repeatedly/has some lasting significance, it shouldn't be the only thing the article subject is known for. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 13:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Coverage of the drinking problem [17]. is. in fact, "covered repeatedly/has some lasting significance" and covered in-depth, mention of it needs to be added to article. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - fails notability NealeFamily ( talk) 23:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non-notable local councilor. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete notable only for reasons that otherwise violate WP:BLP. Also references such as Linked-In are not reliable sources Ajf773 ( talk) 08:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Although Christchurch is a large enough city that its city councillors might be includable if they could be shown to satisfy WP:GNG, it's not in the rarefied level of cities that can give their city councillors an automatic WP:NPOL pass just for existing. There's simply not enough genuinely substantive content here to trump the WP:BLPPRIVACY issues posed by the public drunkenness claims — outside of that, there's nothing here that goes beyond the kind of "meet your councillor" PR profile that he could send out on his own campaign literature (which is not the kind of article that any politician at any level of office gets to keep on here.) Bearcat ( talk) 18:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • - - If keep, there is a request to move this page to Jamie Gough, if there are no other notable Jamie Goughs. But see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Gough. There is also Jamie Gough (footballer), which I found deleted at Jamie Gough and I undeleted it and moved it to Jamie Gough (footballer) and re-deleted it. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 04:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Scion of a wealthy family, for which reason some of the coverage is far from routine coverage of a minor politician [18]. Nor will a simple "fails WP:POL do in this case since there is media coverage of his role in the family-owned corporation. The family corporation thing gets complicated, but since the political career and family wealth are interreleted, the article needs to be expanded with material like this: [19], here: [20] and here: [21] (note: that url looks sketchy, but is actually a joint operation of three major NZ newspapers, including The Press, The Dominion Post and the The Sunday Star-Times. (Note this wealthy family business/dynasty needs an article of its own.) Search on New Zealand's only "other" major newspaper (N.Z. looks big on a map, but pop. is tiny) here: [22] but note that he is not the dude that caught the baseball, and coverage of him is routing and limited in The herals, the Auckland paper. It is in the South that Gough clan is a big deal. But it is a big deal, which is why coverage in the 3 southern papers is extensive and often in depth, search results here: [23]. There is more in The Press, coverage of everything from his social life, to his insulting the lower classes, and mostly, of his work as a city councillor - over 400 articles, I only skimed the first 2 or 3 pages. More coverage in The Southland Times, the Manawatu Standard, and other media, more than enough to make it a keeper. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Weak Delete: I'm on the fence here, but what pushes me towards delete is that I can't find any biography pieces about him, instead all of the news coverage is "Gough did/says this/that", this from the NBR was the closest I could find to a profile of him and it's not just about him [24]. I am surprised that Gough Group doesn't have an article as a fairly large company, so perhaps some of this information can be moved into that, or into a Gough family article. Mattlore ( talk) 23:27, 12 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. We have good argument from both sides. The keep votes emphasize that all the publicity of the company was generated during a short period; the delete votes point out that there is a sufficient amount of reliable sources which mention the organization and thus it passes WP:GNG. The delete votes numerically prevail as 2:1, but since the overall number of votes is not so great, and the keep votes are more policy based ( WP:ONEEVENT does not indeed apply), I close this as no consensus.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 10:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Immigration Watch Canada

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

First two GHits are the group page and the WP article. Looks like WP:1EVENT/ WP:NOTNEWS. WP:ORGDEPTH is not met, as all of the organization's coverage is limited to the flyering event, and I might go so far as to say that this is an article on an event that doesn't meet WP:EVENT masquerading as an ORG article and trying to use WP:ROUTINE to establish passing WP:GNG. MSJapan ( talk) 23:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete They were briefly in the news in 2014 for some controversial fliers they put out. I could not find any mention of the group in Reliable Sources before or since 2014. I think they were basically a flash in the pan. The group seems to still exist, but it does not seem that they ever had lasting notability. -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 01:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 01:40, 27 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 08:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:GNG appear to be met. Excepting WP:1EVENT, which doesn't apply here, there doesn't seem to be good consensus on deletion based on WP:EVENT arguments. In the absence of consensus, we keep. ~ Kvng ( talk) 14:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Nom amended - WP:NOTNEWS is probably the closest I can get to "an organization only notable for doing one thing a few years ago," so I have added that, and ORGDEPTH is definitely not met by coverage of one event. Several news outlets covering the same event is not significant coverage; it's WP:COATRACKING and whatever the shortlink is to the guideline that says 100 news sources saying the same thing is not evidence of depth of coverage. MSJapan ( talk) 17:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. It's always a bad sign when the first two google hits are the organizations's own website, and our article. The next hit is to the Huffington Post, Canada edition, which has three short articles on them. All published within a seven month span in 2014. Normally, I'd consider HuffPo a WP:RS, but, 1) they only covered it in the Canada edition, 2) the articles are short, 3) they're really about specific events, i.e. the flyers, not the organization itself, and 4) they all are within a short time span.. So, I don't think this is enough to meet WP:GNG. Also, HuffPo Canada is the only WP:RS I'm seeing. Nobody else seems to be picking up on it. Continuing to work down the first page of google hits, I see social media like twitter and facebook, and some political blogs. Not the kind of coverage we're looking for. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Although the policies cited in the nomination have been amended, I still cannot close this based on a clear consensus, and will therefore give the community another seven days to attempt to form one. KaisaL ( talk) 13:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL ( talk) 13:18, 5 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) ansh 666 02:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

OmniGuide

OmniGuide (  | 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 company, doesn't appear to meet WP:CORP. This is a private company, which means info is sparse anyway, but drilling down on the Highbeam search results claimed to meet notability shows that they are press releases, either required by law (changes in high-level personnel), financing notices, or ads. Adjusting for the first two [26] dropped 31 results of the original 179, and starts showing duplication in strange areas in the rest of the results, like a result in Entertainment Close-up, and the same item in Wireless News, which are clearly not RS for a medical device company, and on close review, are press release ads. Most of the results are in "weekly"-type websites that don't seem to be discerning in content. I'm not aware that usage of tools in primary studies meets notability for the manufacturer, as that seems WP:INHERITED . The company also spun out of MIT, which means the MIT source used is questionable as independent. Posting the AfD notice to the creator yielded several CSDs of this article in 2008 and a block of the user for creating the article. Delete and salt if speediable. MSJapan ( talk) 20:28, 19 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 08:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will relist this again in the hope of additional input, there is clearly no consensus to delete right now but input has been minimal as a whole. KaisaL ( talk) 13:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL ( talk) 13:17, 5 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) ansh 666 02:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Jock Haswell

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

Doesn't appear to satisfy WP:SOLDIER or WP:AUTHOR. Clarityfiend ( talk) 01:03, 20 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 08:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Although many of these debates have been going to a split no consensus, I am happy to give this enough seven days in the hope of additional input. KaisaL ( talk) 13:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL ( talk) 13:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete His books are held in up to 400 libraries in WorldCat, but I was able to find only one review, and that in Kirkus, which reviews just about everything coming out of mainstream publishers. And that review was not positive: "Haswell's biography nonetheless fails to grasp the political climate of the day, depicting James as a victim." His scholarship seems to be non-notable (few citations in scholarly works per G-scholar). Without reviews and cites, it is hard to argue for notability. I have no opinion as to his military bone fides since I'm not up on those policies, but as author he isn't notable. LaMona ( talk) 16:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I admit that looking him up is tricky, because he doesn't have a stable first name, because he seems to have sometimes published under a pseudonym, and because he was publishing pre-internet. Nevertheless, it was easy to find reviews in general circulartion American newspapers (I added a couple to the article") and to validate him by typing a cou;le of unique book titles from the page into a search on books google My search on ""the first respectable spy : the life and times of Colquhoun Grant" here: [30]; my search on ""The Intelligence and Deception of the D-Day Landings"," here: [31]. That's certainly enough to validate notability. Article needs expansion, User:LaMona, User:Johnpacklambert, User:Clarityfiend, would you revisit? Perhaps run a different kind of search, in light of the name problem, and the fact that his career took place in prehistoric times? E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
I see his books listed here, but I don't see reviews. Also, finding the book's title in other books is kind of like doing a google search on a term - you get hits, but it isn't clear, unless you can look at the resulting documents, whether the documents represent significant treatment. I am wary of using Google book searches as conclusions when one does not have access to the books themselves. It's a finding aid, not the end of research. So, no, I don't think this is enough to validate notability. LaMona ( talk) 17:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
To be clear, the hits on the first page of my 2 books searches (every search is different) led to multiple fully legible pages where information from the two books I searched was being discussed in the text of the book I located. And I did add book reviews to the page. This one truly looks like a slam dunk to me. Odd, because my findings usually jibe with LaMona's. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 19:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Double-checking myself because LaMona is very reliable. Haswell is clearly a popularizer, not an academic historian, but major publishers don't go on publishing an author, and American publishers don't reprint British titles, unless the man's books are selling. How popular? Hard to say. There are sources like this: [32]. But, mostly, there are the mentions of his work in other books and the old book reviews. Add another book review, this one form the Los Angeles Times. He really does seem to have been a reasonably well-known author in his day. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 19:57, 6 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) ansh 666 02:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Jock Brandis

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

Doesn't satisfy WP:BIO as far as I can see. Film crews are almost always unnotable. See also the above Afd for The Ship's Cat, a book he wrote. Clarityfiend ( talk) 01:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: He's non-notable for his film work and I've edited the page to remove the mentions of his technical work. From my experience this stuff is rarely added because technical work (gaffer, lighting, cinematography, special effects) tends to not be considered of overwhelming note on Wikipedia unless their work is specifically highlighted on Wikipedia. I think that this probably stems from the fact that workers of this type tend to do 3-4 times the work that your average actor and director would complete, meaning that their work is more common and less visible than an actor or director, not to mention that their roles aren't as "big" as someone in an acting or directing position. Their work is the backbone of the film, to be sure, but it doesn't have the same level of visibility and immediate notability since you can have many people working on lighting and special effects, as well as many gaffers. Cinematography is a bit different since there's typically only one of them, but it's difficult to establish notability for them since they're not frequently listed in film coverage and as such their role can frequently be seen as "minor". (This is not my opinion, just how it's often perceived.) However since Brandis only worked as a cinematographer on Diary of a Sinner, a film without its own article, this is a bit moot. He might be notable for the sheller and the organization, although both pages do seem to have issues with sourcing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I was honestly not expecting to find much for Brandis, given that his book was solidly non-notable and his article was borderline promotional, but it looks like Brandis received quite a bit of coverage for his peanut sheller, charitable organization, and for his special effects work with Death Bed, as his creation of the titular bed has received some coverage. It's in relation to the film, but it's in-depth enough to where it can give some notability as he's specifically and repeatedly mentioned by name. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:14, 27 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 08:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's an insufficient level of consensus to make any sort of call on this yet. More input is needed. KaisaL ( talk) 13:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL ( talk) 13:15, 5 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. In a discussion with block evasion, I'm not counting IP opinions.  Sandstein  08:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Psychotronics (therapy)

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

Nonnotable pseudoscientific snake oil mumbo-jumbo from 1970s Staszek Lem ( talk) 16:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even with the struck out comments I am not convinced yet that there has been enough input to clearly close this with a consensus to delete. KaisaL ( talk) 13:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL ( talk) 13:12, 5 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. Euryalus ( talk) 13:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Ádám Borics

Ádám Borics (  | 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 MMA fighter does not meet WP:NMMA or WP:GNG. The primary editor seems to represent a MMA company which gave him an award of some sort. Peter Rehse ( talk) 12:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 12:33, 5 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. Nakon 00:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Muzahid Khan

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

Delete or Redirect to Rang-E-Ishq: Non-notable actor possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON. I failed to find any independent reliable source to support WP:NACTOR and the article been deleted twice already per A7 (see deletion log Muzahid khan and Muzahid Khan. As usual i dont understand why Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant decline csd and waste everyone's time on AfD. Thank You – GSS ( talk) 11:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 11:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 11:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination. I was going to agree with the suggested redirect, but Rang-E-Ishq was one of the billion non-notable films that pour out of Bollywood every month, so I've prodded that as well. I can find no significant coverage of him (or the film) online in WP:RS.
  • Delete as I should note the tag remover is now kicked from the website so, as my analysis and examinations are still not finding anything convincingly better, there's nothing to suggest the needed improvements. SwisterTwister talk 00:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as non-notable actor. — Music1201 talk 21:33, 13 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 per WP:CSD#A7 - anyone can start a record label and claim it is significant without selling any records Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Ya'llKnow Wolf

Ya'llKnow Wolf (  | 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 that I could find of meeting the notability guidelines for music ( WP:MUSICBIO). Google for "Ya'llKnow Wolf" returns next to nothing. Autobiographical article —   crh 23  ( Talk) 10:57, 5 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. Euryalus ( talk) 12:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Grant G. Mitman

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

Self-created article, no evidence of meeting WP:NACADEMICS Melcous ( talk) 10:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 15:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 15:47, 5 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. Euryalus ( talk) 13:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

North Road (Plymouth)

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

I'm having trouble finding any sources to show the notability of this road over and above the railway station which has its own article. — Rod talk 07:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 15:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 15:38, 6 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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Trivandrum V Balaji

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

Not notable, searches come up with very little. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:45, 28 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 04:12, 5 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. sufficient consensus after relisting DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Mithal Jiskani

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

Delete. Subject fails WP:AUTHOR and neither does he pass WP:PROF. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 16:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 16:42, 28 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 03:34, 5 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. Clear Consensus DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Karam ud Din

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

Delete. Fails WP:SOLDIER. Recipient of the 7th highest honor ( Tamgha-i-Khidmat). As per WP:SOLDIER, only one time recipient of highest award or multiple time recipient of second-highest award are notable (in terms of awards). He has not held any high rank, nor played an important role in a significant military event or commanded a substantial body of troops in combat. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 16:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 16:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 16:42, 28 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 03:33, 5 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. Katie talk 11:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Shopping in Leeds

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

Whole article is written like a retail guide. Highly unsourced and no notable content (anything content that may be slightly notable is better suited for merging to the Leeds article) Ajf773 ( talk) 08:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 16:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 16:44, 28 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 03:32, 5 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. Katie talk 11:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Shopping in Manchester

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

Written as a retail guide WP:NOTGUIDE. Mostly cited by primary sources and thus fails WP:GNG. Some appropriate sourced content more suited to be merged into other articles Ajf773 ( talk) 09:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an all-purpose shopping registry. I am still amazed how all these "Shopping in XYZ" articles made it through the notability check. -- Arbraxan ( talk) 10:56, 28 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 03:32, 5 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 as a week has shown both convincing consensus and also the fact that applicable high schools are in fact notable thus Keep (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 00:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

M.M.M Urdu High School

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

Bad spelling and grammar, no proof of notability, and appears to have been created by a recent graduate of the school.  ONR   (talk)  03:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 15:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 15:50, 5 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. Euryalus ( talk) 13:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Gabriela Dias (actress)

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

Advertorially-slanted WP:BLP of an "actress, model, television host, producer, businesswoman and humanitarian", with no strong or properly sourced indication of notability for any of those endeavours. The whole thing is written like a LinkedIn profile, and the sourcing is almost entirely of the primary variety with negligible reliable source coverage about her in media. None of her career activities are fields that confer an automatic inclusion freebie on a person just because she exists -- they all have specific markers of achievement that have to be attained, and specific volumes of reliable sourcing that have to be shown. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 05:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 16:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 16:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 16:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per discussion below. Question: How much research into additional sourcing has anyone else done here? I can't say I am impressed, and I am concerned about sourcing, but there appears to be enough accomplishments in combination to (barely) meet GNG, but the above google search is pretty restrictive, I've gotten more with this search, including a swimwear line that adds another factor to her GNG assessment. Montanabw (talk) 20:32, 1 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 03:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

*Delete I agree with again with Bearcat, this article does not pass WP:GNG Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 06:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)Banned sock. HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 06:38, 11 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. Euryalus ( talk) 06:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Madeline Matar

Madeline Matar (  | 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 2006 article lacks sources that establish notability. I attempted WP:BEFORE and came up short. There is some information on the Arabic Wikipedia, but no sources there either. Scottyoak2 ( talk) 02:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 16:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 16:49, 28 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 03:26, 5 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. Mojo Hand ( talk) 14:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Francisco Ramírez (politician)

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

Self-created article, does not appear to meet WP:NPOL as local councillor Melcous ( talk) 01:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 12:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 12:11, 28 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 03:25, 5 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. Not my field, but consensus seems clear enough DGG ( talk ) 08:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply

The Salvador Darlings

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:BAND PGWG ( talk) 14:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:31, 1 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 03:20, 5 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. Hut 8.5 21:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Grace Boylan

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

Cannot find any Reliable Sources about subject, does not appear to meet WP:GNG PGWG ( talk) 16:54, 27 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 02:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

*Delete This article does not pass WP:GNG Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 06:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC) Banned sock HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 06:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Yes, I had the same thought. Innisfree987 ( talk) 21:08, 6 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. We cannot judge spiritual importance,only documentable evidence that the person is an important religious leader. This is not adequate here. Such problems may prevent adequate coverage of this field, but we are limited by WP:V, which is one of he basic principles. DGG ( talk ) 08:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Muhammad Siddique Dar

Muhammad Siddique Dar (  | 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 indications of significance, even less notability. The article subject is supposedly a successor in a practically unknown religious group in Punjab, Pakistan. The person has no independent presence on the English internet - the article is entirely self-sourced, and just like other articles created by the same editor ( Abdul Hakim Ansari, Tauheediyah, Muhammad Hanif Khan), seems to simply promote or legitimise the said religious group. I suggest deletion per WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NBIO (including WP:ANYBIO). — kashmiri  TALK 19:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I'm going to have to second the comparison here to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tauheediyah and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Hakim Ansari. Promotional articles on obscure South Asian religious figures is extremely common on the encyclopedia, and almost every instance shares a few constants such as poor writing, re-citing the same source over and over to inflate the references, and asserting little notability about the subjects other than that they were good people. Like the others, this article fails the WP:GNG on the most basic level. The fact that the subject's supposed notoriety revolves around the above mentioned deleted articles also severely damages any possible claims of notability. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 06:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Page is in accordance to WP:V of its sources, It is not problematic as satisfying WP:NOR recommendations. Additionally there are nothing to be considered as objectionable in view of WP:C. Write up is also satisfactory to WP:NPOV. Page under review has no issues related to WP:AB, WP:SELFPROMOTE. There is no violations of WP:SELFCITE provisions. Contribution is covered under WP:CURATOR and is part of WP:COIU. Person satisfies WP:GNG and is in accordance to WP:SIGCOV in Urdu language being president or Shakh of a spiritual chain, author of notable works, and author of considerable influence in research and literature on Islamic mysticism and spirituality. Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah ( talk) 16:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Seriously? There are only two sources on this article, from the same author...which is YOU. You've created an entire article citing only your own apparently self-published sources, which seems like a major conflict with WP:SELFCITE. Also, you basically copied most of your comment here from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Hanif Khan, which you also did on the last two AfDs about two related articles you created (which were ultimately deleted). MezzoMezzo ( talk) 07:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply
I agree regarding new references to strengthen contents. I do it shortly may be in next week after holidays. I don't think there is any violation of WP:SELFCITE provisions. If there, point out please to improve further. Yes i copied almost similar comments on both pages because i think both pages are in discussion due to almost similar problems. Your good suggestions are appreciated. Thank you for help. Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah ( talk) 11:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Page is according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Improvements are part of the game. 43.245.9.63 ( talk) 14:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC) Same IP only posting on AfDs and DRVs of articles created by this person? Yeah no, the DUCK is strong with this one. -- Majora ( talk) 21:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Author of books, editor in chief of a printed magazine that is being published in 17 years, translator of books, shakh or head in spiritual chain as saint, shrine and ceremonials after death, having highest awards from his armed forces head of country 'Chief of Air Staff Commendation Certificate' and from president of a country Pakistan ‘Tamgha-i-Khidmat - II’ ( WP:MILPEOPLE – If person has one highest award. He has two highest awards.) are supportive to his notability. If independent sources are not available on him as ‘saint’ it is not only the case in biographies of saints. High award winners always get published and discussed in departmental and national media. - 182.187.38.242 ( talk) 13:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC) — 182.187.38.242 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:34, 5 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. The arguments for keeping aren ot supported by policy: notability is claimed on the basis of his spiritual importance, though there is no way to document that. We cannot make an 1encyclopedia on such a principle. DGG ( talk ) 08:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Muhammad Hanif Khan

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

Another article from the promotional stable of User:Rahmatgee, next to Tauheediyah, Abdul Hakim Ansari and Muhammad Siddique Dar. Like the other three, this one also promotes a persona in a little-known religious group in Punjab, Pakistan. So little known that the person cannot be found on the English internet, and the article is entirely self-sourced (i.e., sourced to a publication by the said group). Article entirely fails WP:NBIO and should be deleted from English Wikipedia in my view, per WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. — kashmiri  TALK 20:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This seems to be, yet again, another case of little known South Asian religious figures receiving articles by dedicated local followers. This happens with an extremely high frequency and is almost always in good faith, but usually accompanied with attempts to continuously re-cite the same sources to inflate the reference section, poorly written prose and often very little claims of nobility aside from piety and faith. The most recent examples would be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Hakim Ansari and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tauheediyah. Like those, the article on Muhammad Hanif Khan fails the WP:GNG and also falls into advertisement issues. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 06:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Page is in accordance to WP:V of its sources, It is not problematic as satisfying WP:NOR recommendations. Additionally there are nothing to be considered as objectionable in view of WP:C. Write up is also satisfactory to WP:NPOV. Page under review has no issues related to WP:SELFPROMOTE. Contribution is covered under WP:CURATOR and is part of WP:COIU. Person satisfies WP:GNG and is in accordance to WP:SIGCOV in Urdu language being a saint. Authors refer him as the major source of innovating thought of Vision of absolute self of God. Spiritual chain such Tauheediyah is following his ideology and has its followers around the globe. Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah ( talk) 16:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply
There are only two sources cited here, both of which are associated with the now deleted Tauheediyah group (whose article you created and which failed all of the above mentioned guidelines and policies, like this article). How does an article with only two citations satisfy WP:GNG? And why did you just copy almost all of your comment here from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Siddique Dar, which is the same thing you did on the last two related articles that were deleted? MezzoMezzo ( talk) 07:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Yes two sources were cited and other were given for further readings. I think it is good not to add many references within the text. Should these be added? Further readings have independent sources as well. Some books cite Muhammad Hanif Khan as the originator of Vision of the absolute self of Muslims God; Allah. His personality has been discussed by some other scholars in connection to Abdul Hakim Ansari. Abdurrehman Killani also discussed his personality in detail in his comprehensive book 'Shariato tareeqat'. These are good evidence of notability and according to WP:GNG. Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah ( talk) 11:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Nothing wrong regarding policies and cite sources that have published and circulated. Person is famous saint. I read about him in any book that was not cited there. 43.245.9.63 ( talk) 14:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC) Same IP only posting on AfDs and DRVs of articles created by this person? Yeah no, the DUCK is strong with this one. -- Majora ( talk) 21:07, 4 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 02:33, 5 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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 08:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Sayyed Mohsen Fatemi

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

It seems statements are false and thus it doesn't meet criteria for notability. I checked Harvard website and couldn't find his name there [38]. :) Ladsgroup overleg 02:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 15:48, 5 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. Stifle ( talk) 08:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Madalyn Schiffel

Madalyn Schiffel (  | 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:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 02:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Kosack ( talk) 08:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication of any collage award to satisfy NCOLLATH. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy either NHSPHSATH or wider GNG. Have done a pretty exhaustive search and acknowledge that she is the starting goalkeeper for her club in Norway's top league per Soccerway, but I'm just not seeing GNG here. The only substantial coverage I can find for her consists of the following:
  1. A number of You tube videos focussing on her but all produced either by her college or the conference in which she competed. Therefore primary sources ineligible for GNG.
  2. Brief article but from a blog recognised as her college's official blog. Therefore primary source ineligible for GNG.
  3. Detailed career summary but from a club that she used to play for, not really independant enough for GNG.
  4. Reasonably lengthy article from her norwegian club but again a primary source.
  5. Couple of paragraphs of analysis following her draft. The only thing of note I could find from an independent source.
Fenix down ( talk) 11:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Question Delete based on discussion below @ Fenix down: Perhaps you can help on this. She has played a first team game in the Toppserien, evidence of which I found here and I assume there's more. Is this a professional team or league? It's not listed on WP:FPL at all but the Wikipedia article says it is professional. Obviously I'd support to keep if it is and delete if it is not (but as a WP:TOOSOON given her young age). KaisaL ( talk) 13:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Sure. What WP:FPL means is that consensus has been achieved that the league in question is "fully professional", i.e. that all clubs in a given league are professional and the players for the first team don't need to work in any other jobs. Whilst therefore, there maybe "professional elements" in the Toppsieren (I presume Madalyn is professional as she has moved from the US), not all the clubs, nor all the players are, or at least no consensus has been reached that they are. Confusingly, this does not mean they are not, simply that no discussion has been had around the league in question. This is not particularly useful for women's football as there is a globally lower level of professionalism due to the lower level of popularity / coverage the game gets. As such, most female players who are not senior internationals need to rely on GNG. In this instance I don't see it and although the player is a regular at her club in Norway, I don't think she has been there long enough to have generated significant independent coverage (interviews and the like) in Norwegian sources. Fenix down ( talk)
Ok, fair enough. I will go with your better judgement, then, and support a deletion. (It can be difficult to use WP:GNG for sports and competitive fields, I've had the same difficulty with eSports topics at AFD recently.) KaisaL ( talk) 13:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
You seem to have misinterpreted my list. WP:BASIC is not met because all substantial coverage of this player comes from primary sources. The link you have provided goes a little way to GNG but is insufficient on its own. Fenix down ( talk) 06:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Yeah, you'll need to search on https://www.google.no and do some translation as well. Some refs have been added. Article needs expansion, not deletion.. Hmlarson ( talk) 06:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick •  t •  c •  s 08:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick •  t •  c •  s 08:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick •  t •  c •  s 08:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick •  t •  c •  s 08:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Women's soccer in Norway is nowhere near fully professional; Schiffel as an import player may be semi-pro. More importantly, Schiffel's team Avaldsnes IL is scheduled to contest the Champions League in less than two months (see 2016–17 UEFA Women's Champions League#Group 8). It should give an indication that Avaldsnes is a leading team in Europe, and thus on the "highest level" of women's soccer in Norway and Europe. Geschichte ( talk) 09:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Does not meet GNG. She does not play in a fully professional league, so she is not meeting the notability guidelines for footballers. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as still nothing for the convincing independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. not my usual field, but playing in the top women's league in Norway should be acceptable, even if the league is not a highly notable or a fully profesional as the male leagues. She's at the top of the profession in her field. This is one of the acceptable ways of correcting our systematic bias. DGG ( talk ) 09:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, pro league argument not relevant for women, and no one has argumented against my comments above, to which I henceforth refer. If deleted, it would be without prejudice, and the article would be recreated when she plays in the Champions League. Geschichte ( talk) 18:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep every day of the week and twice on Sundays. This Wikipedia-specific (or Wikipedia football project-specific) concept of "fully professionalism" doesn't amount to a hill of beans. 94.8.65.103 ( talk) 20:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep We've seen in several recent discussions a lack of consensus to delete articles of top female footballers, with borderline media coverage, and a lack of national team appearances. This is due to systemic bias, we need to find ways to make the project more balanaced, not enforce rules that weren't designed to deal with this situation. We must remember that it is Wikipedia policy to Ignore All Rules. Nfitz ( talk) 17:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Clearly fails WP:NFOOTY. There is just no evidence that she is a top player: she never made a national selection (U23 does not count), she is not playing in a top league and never did. I realize that women's football gets much less coverage than men's football, but even with this discount there is no evidence she is any close to the top.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 10:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - what is that U23 selection? The Canadian and Brazilian squads use the full national team for tournaments where the men are U23, and the US sometimes sends a younger team. Was it a tournament didn't have a U23 requirement, and the US chose to send a U23 team anyway? Nfitz ( talk) 17:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - No need to invoke IAR. This footballer satisfies WP:V#Notability with multiple references. Also, the content verifies her international notability when she played the U-20ish playoffs. -- George Ho ( talk) 20:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Also, she satisfies the WP:BIO#Sports personalities, even when she might fail WP:NFOOTBALLER. -- George Ho ( talk) 20:43, 18 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. Euryalus ( talk) 11:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Natalie Stejskalova

I don't think that this article should be delete, because it's based on truth.

Natalie Stejskalova (  | 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. References in the article are made up of Youtube links, work profiles, dead links, and promotional blogs. Aust331 ( talk) 09:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:38, 1 July 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 // 01:31, 5 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) ansh 666 02:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Angus Dalgleish

Angus Dalgleish (  | 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 general notability criteria. Contested prod; marked as of questionable notability since Aug 2015. Only 2 of the citations given are independent reliable sources about the person and both are about a failed candidacy, so fails WP:NPOL. Bondegezou ( talk) 08:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:41, 1 July 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 // 01:31, 5 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) ansh 666 02:50, 13 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)

User:Gatoclass has expressed notability concerns regarding this article. This is a procedural nomination. SST flyer 10:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 10:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Just to be clear about this, I pulled a hook related to this article from the WP:DYK queue because I noticed the article had recently been recreated from a redirect with no apparent discussion, and as I didn't have time to look more closely at the issue, decided that discretion would be the better part of valour. So I have not personally taken a view on whether or not the article should be retained or merged back to the Trump article as it was previously. The issue does need to be resolved however, and I'd prefer to see that done by discussion rather than by unilateral decision. Gatoclass ( talk) 11:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Donald Trump and/or Marla Maples. Just not seeing independent notability for stand alone article; notability is not inherited. Kierzek ( talk) 19:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Seems to have some independent news coverage. At MOST, this should be a redirect to a section under Donald Trump. As such, I question why this was brought to AfD at all? The only alternative to keep here would be merge/redirect, which does not need an AfD entry. We're overcrowded here as it is... Fieari ( talk) 23:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is all fluff growing out of who her parents are, nothing that really passes General Notability Guidelines. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. She can be mentioned in her parents' articles, but nothing here suggests that she's earned a standalone BLP as an independent topic in her own right. Notability is not inherited, and the strongest claim of standalone notability here is the number of followers she has on Instagram — but no number of followers on any social networking platform constitutes a notability freebie in and of itself if that's the most substantive notability claim you can come up with. Bearcat ( talk) 04:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - breadth of articles indicate WP:GNG criteria is met. Article could use expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson ( talk) 00:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per this reference from the article, "Unlike Donald’s elder offspring — Donald Jr., 37; Ivanka, 34; and Eric, 31 — Tiffany hasn’t appeared on “The Apprentice” or even on the Manhattan charity-gala circuit." Intentionally or unintentionally, she has not gained the notability that her elder siblings have gained. Sometimes the sky is blue ( talk) 01:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC) Keep this discussion open for another two weeks. She is supposed to speak at the 2016 Republican National Convention next week, and at that point she could become notable, if she delivers a notable speech. Sometimes the sky is blue ( talk) 15:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply
That article is quite in-depth coverage of Tiffany Trump! ---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 03:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
This "in-depth" article, titled "What’s the deal with Donald Trump’s mystery daughter?" does not give any information about her to make her notable. Sometimes the sky is blue ( talk) 14:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Just in case it's not clear: she's a "mystery" because she is currently not notable. 19:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sometimes the sky is blue ( talk • contribs)
  • Keep - huge amount of sources available, including the in-depth CNN piece currently there. Definitely meets the GNG. ---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 03:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and expand – She is obviously receiving more attention now due to her father's presidential bid, however compared with the previous nomination for deletion there are now multiple independent RS covering her as an individual, not merely as "daughter of". Besides, if we moved back to a redirect, it would be hard to decide whether to redirect to Donald Trump or to Marla Maples, because she was raised by her mother despite bearing her father's name. Finally, to answer the point about having fewer personal accomplishments than her siblings, well she's also much younger so that's natural and expected. — JFG talk 05:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or merge: Yes, deletion will just get this article recreated again. Keep the link blue. Why this is an AfD and not a merge discussion is beyond me. She probably has enough notoreity and third-party coverage to meet GNG as a minor famous person. So she wouldn't likel be famous except for who her daddy is. That also could be said of her daddy... Montanabw (talk) 07:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Absolitely keep-Keep this soutce and just link her parents and family — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:247:C200:E5A:99D8:14C8:F349:72E ( talk) 07:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: her presumed notability is exclusively due to her father and likely to be only temporary.-- Desyman ( talk) 12:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Strong keep. The daughter of such a major world figure is likely to be somebody that people look for encyclopedic information on. It may be argued that it is not inherited, but somebody that is going to be referenced - even if just in passing - in major news articles over the coming months and be subject to scrutiny justifies inclusion here. KaisaL ( talk) 17:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Shifting to a strong keep because on further thought, of course she's notable. The Business Insider article even lampooned her lack of an article here. KaisaL ( talk) 23:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply

*Keep The article subject passes WP:GNG and therefore should be retained. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 10:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)Blocked sock. HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 06:54, 11 July 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 // 01:30, 5 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) 07:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Sutal Dolls

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

None notable musical group. Article's references and quick online search gave no evidence of notability. Aust331 ( talk) 10:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:34, 1 July 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 // 01:29, 5 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 America Sings#Incident and Renovation. Up to editors whether to merge anything more.  Sandstein  08:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Deborah Gail Stone

Deborah Gail Stone (  | 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 individual, known only for death, which while tragic, does not meet WP:GNG.Hasn't been covered by credible sources other than maybe Snopes. Sro23 ( talk) 20:09, 19 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 08:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Possible notability. Deborah Stone's death resulted in changes to a lot of Disneyland park rides and increased safety measures, and there seems to be some yet-to-be-researched evidence that her death helped to improve safety measures to a lot of theme parks. This might require more looking into. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:280:C400:E85:F178:C16F:37C3:EBD3 ( talk) 04:14, 29 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 // 01:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

*Delete Article subject does not pass WP:GNG. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 21:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)banned sock HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 06:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Comment I'm not going to withdraw my nomination because I still believe Stone fails basic notability. However clearly 2601:280:C400:E85:F178:C16F:37C3:EBD3 put hard work into finding more sources and information about the individual, so I wouldn't be opposed to redirecting and merging that content into the America Sings article. Sro23 ( talk) 16:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and then Redirect as there's still nothing convincing for the substance about her own article. SwisterTwister talk 23:01, 12 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  10:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Newt Syrup

Newt Syrup (  | 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:NOTDIR, WP:ENN. NN open-source program, no RS to assert notability. SPA creation by the developer, who tried to also create an article on himself, which was speedied. MSJapan ( talk) 17:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric ( talk) 13:41, 20 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 08:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Material doesn't have to be referenced to be eligible for merge. Some editors prefer merge material to be verifyable. Do you think this is contentious material or that there could be a problem verifying this content? ~ Kvng ( talk) 14:06, 6 July 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 // 01:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Literally, no independent sources available. I'm also opposed to a merge here, firstly, because the content is unsourced. But even if the content was sourced, I don't see a point of adding this to Newt (programming library). This application framework simply uses Newt for its user interface - it is not in any way "related" to newt. As an analogy, this framework uses Python and if we don't consider a merge to Python, we shouldn't consider a merge to Newt as well. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 15:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Oppose Merge per Lemongirl942 - there is little connection to Newt as these are separate pieces of software with different developers. Dialectric ( talk) 15:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as this was ridiculously removed despite its clear non-notability and unsourced state with no actual attempts of improving it; my analysis has also confirmed no apparent signs of better. SwisterTwister talk 23:00, 12 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) 07:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Slow programming

Slow programming (  | 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 term, likely WP:NEOLOGISM. No RS sources. The term is not mentioned in the source given (which despite being Salon, was pulled from AlterNet), and Google search turns up Reddit, Facebook, and blogs. MSJapan ( talk) 17:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:41, 19 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 08:25, 27 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 // 01:28, 5 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) 07:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Sex-androgyny in mythology

Sex-androgyny in mythology (  | 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:FORK. This was apparently broken out of Non-dualism back in 2013, but the content now is basically just pull-quotes from primary sources, and an unrelated tack-on from "modern medicine" at the end. The topics are covered much better elsewhere (as noted by the main links throughout), and representing Tantra and Plato as "mythology" is incorrect - they're philosophical. One of the major problems I see content-wise is that the Plato material is actually considered satire. The content issues aren't fixable within the presented context, because they don't fit it. MSJapan ( talk) 16:58, 19 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 08:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - This is one of those fairly rare examples of (prohibited) Original Research to make it to AfD. While there may (or may not) be a journal article in this topic, there aren't journal articles on this topic — it is a novel thesis backed by quotations from primary sources. Said to be a fork above, which I don't opine upon. Delete per NO OR. Carrite ( talk) 21:48, 29 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 // 01:28, 5 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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 19:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Tarun Anand

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

NN person. The award doesn't have any GHits, and the only real significant coverage is the NYT article. MSJapan ( talk) 00:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 19:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 02:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 02:08, 27 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 08:27, 27 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 // 01:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG by a mile and also WP:BLP1E. The New York Times article is no doubt significant coverage. But this is trivial coverage where they have quoted the subject. And apart from these 2, there is literally no other coverage of the subject. This does not pass GNG at all. In addition, this is essentially BLP1E as both mention he subject in context of the company. Wikipedia is not a directory of non-notable people who are the founders of a non-notable company. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 23:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as the listed 2 sources are quite unconvincing attempts at making this seem actually notable....when it is not, there's nothing at all suggestive of the needed independent notability and thus should've been deleted as PROD. SwisterTwister talk 22:49, 12 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, WP:SOFTDELETE-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Ahmed Hassan (Actor)

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

Not enough references to proof his notability. GreenCricket (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:42, 19 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 08:26, 27 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 // 01:27, 5 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. clear consensus after relsiting DGG ( talk ) 09:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Lora Flattum

Lora Flattum (  | 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 pageant winner of Miss Virginia. Outside of winning the event, I cannot find any other information that would make her meet WP:GNG RickinBaltimore ( talk) 18:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Neutral. I've just beefed up the article to describe her accomplishments in elder care law and science research. She prob wouldn't meet GNG on any one of these things alone but I think the sum qualifies. Innisfree987 ( talk) 15:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply
I'm changing my vote as I see Lemongirl's point about inadequacy of sources for notability, and I haven't found more sources to add. I'm going to leave my opinion as neutral though, as candidly I don't especially see what's gained in deleting: I think there are enough sources for a verifiable article and in aggregate, especially with founding the UVA clinic on elder law, I continue to think there's reason to think this person is worthy of notice, but, I'm willing to defer to community consensus on how we assess the notability question. Innisfree987 ( talk) 18:42, 14 July 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 // 01:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

*Keep As per Innisfree987 and the added sources this article subject meets WP:GNG and should be retained. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 22:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC) banned sock HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 06:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I'm sorry, but I do not see how GNG is met. GNG requires significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, independent of the subject. I searched myself and also looked at the sources added to the article.
  1. [44] Not an independent source, it is a routine profile on a website of the foundation she works at.
  2. [45] Not an independent source. This is a journal, containing a research paper authored by here. This is not a secondary source.
  3. [46], [47], [48], [49] Local sources (limited to 2 newspapers) which cover the subject in context of the beauty pageant.
Sub-national beauty pageant winners are not considered automatically notable. Local sources are not used for proving GNG. I do not see any evidence that the subject passes GNG and in addition, over here it seems like a case of WP:BLP1E. I would be glad if someone can actually show me verifiable evidence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 19:13, 7 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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 19:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Gary Havoc & The Hurricanes

Gary Havoc & The Hurricanes (  | 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 verifiably meet WP:NBAND, possible WP:HOAX. Discogs lists one album. The artist's own website has no discography on it. Worldcat lists the same album. In short, I think all the material in the article is made-up. If Havoc worked on Xena, I should be able to find a credit (not that it matters to the band). I should be able to find internationally-known artists from the 1980s. I can't find anything after 1979 in NZ, even. Created by SPA. MSJapan ( talk) 04:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment, I'm sure the group isn't made up. The NZ Nat library holds a copy. There are also copies for sale on some websites. In discogs the contributors to the page are established plus one Discoger who owns a copy has a history going back to 2009. And as far as Havoc having worked on Xena, it's likely that Havoc is his stage name. He probably goes by his given name. After all, New Zealand's Russell Crowe, (Sorry Aussies but Crowe was born in NZ) was known as Russ Le Roq in his days on the NZ music scene and probably give or take a couple of years, was in the same era. Karl Twist ( talk) 10:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 15:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Reply - I know the group isn't made up; I'm concerned as to their notability, which requires more than existence. I'm even more concerned because the international major label releases (which would establish notability for certain) appear to be what is made up. I've found plenty of references to the first vinyl release in 1979, so I don't feel that's in question, but it's a single, so it's not going to meet WP:NBAND by itself. Just as an FYI to save time, discogs isn't RS because it's user-generated content, and Havoc's work outside the band doesn't matter to the band, so don't focus on anything about those. MSJapan ( talk) 12:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Reply - Quite likely the Desire single Desire (Includes the songs "So Divine", "Broken Heart" and 2 others) - WEA HAVOC 1 is an obscure release. I know of recordings that have been released that have no trace on the internet. Not yet anyway! The Gary Havoc & The Hurricanes release, "The way I am", "The letter" / "Rich kid", "Ponsonby" - RTC RTS 71012 is not actually a single. It is actually an extended play. It could be considered a mini-album. Looking at Discogs, yes it relies on user-generated content, but it's still a good and valuable source for info. The validity of info can be gauged by the checking of the profiles and their input over a period of time. There may be other aspects of Gary Havoc which could be, and probably relevant to this article. It wonder if The Mynah Birds would be that notable if Rick James and Neil Young hadn't hit the big time. Karl Twist ( talk) 11:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
PS: - Further to my post. The Desire album musicians mentioned exist. Mark Huckstep is one of them. [50] Simon Hanna is another. As you can see, Hanna has played on recordings recorded at Mandrill Recording Studios [51] Karl Twist ( talk) 11:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Except neither of those entities have articles, and existence is not notability. The problem with adding in material about Gary Havoc himself is that this is not a bio of Gary Havoc, it's a band article, and the band is not going to inherit notability. Put another way, if Jared Leto had started 30 Seconds to Mars and they never went anywhere as an ensemble, the band would not have an article just because Jared Leto was in it. Part of the problem here is that the band doesn't even have discography on its website, and what's in the article now actually fails WP:V, and thus clearly doesn't meet WP:BAND. MSJapan ( talk) 18:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The fact that those entities don't have articles is not the issue here. I just put forward the name of Mark Huckstep and Simon Hanna forward to show that the Desire recording is not .... "appear to be what is made up", because those musicians do exist! Just because they don't have articles on Wikipedia makes no difference. They are just given to back up Graham Reid's article on Elsewhere, dated Jul 30, 2014. You also says, "Part of the problem here is that the band doesn't even have discography on its website". Yes that is part of A problem. But, I think that this is being rectified. The website is a work in progress from what I can see and I have a feeling the person of interest may be lacking in website building skills. Anyway there is an indication there that there will be updates. Incidentally there is a profile of the band in the Auckland Star but it is not available for online viewing. It's in archive status. Not sure how to get the content. Anyway the band's touring schedule which can be gauged from the adverts in various papers show it had toured around a large part of New Zealand's North Island as well as having performed in Australia. Karl Twist ( talk) 11:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow further development on the article. Nakon 00:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 00:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Comment - I don't doubt the authenticity of this band, but they don't seem especially well known in New Zealand. I've been looking for references to beef up the article, but I cannot find anything online that meets with the WP:NBAND requirements. Quite a few articles briefly mention the band's name in passing, but there's nothing substantial written about the band. We really need something like this AudioCulture profile of The Spelling Mistakes. As an alternative to having a stand-alone article on Gary Havoc & The Hurricanes, is there a larger related article that could incorporate this as a section? Something about New Zealand punk history? A record label history? Robyn2000 ( talk) 10:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Reply - I do believe the article will satisfy most people that it should be stand alone. Time is needed as well as some access to archives that I can't access. Perhaps the coverage today isn't as revealing as some of the more well known NZ artists on Wikipedia but I have seen strong indications that there was good coverage of the group in the late 70s and early 80s. There was a bit about them in the Auckland Star. There were many adds in papers and mags for their playing various venues in NZ. There is more coverage of them in Rip it Up that I can access online as well. Also in some other in Kiwi Rock mag. I also came across a neat little article about them in a paper but sadly I lost my search place. It came up in a search of other similar artists of the time and there it was. I will try and repeat the search which only comes up in image format. They are also included in Discography of New Zealand Popular Music, 1960-1990: Rock, Jazz, Folk, Blues, and Bluegrass list. They also received an IRANZ award for their EP / Mini album. Most of the expansion of the article you see from here to here is due to the work of one person, me! I'm not in NZ and don't have access to libraries and other references that folks in NZ have. As for AudioCulture. It's great and a great place to reference. However, it's only been around 31 May 2013. It's a growing site and I dare say that at some stage Gary Havoc & Co will be on there. As it is now, GH&TH are IMO an important pivotal point in the career of musicians that went on to bigger name bands, and at least one of the musicians from the band may have enough notability to have a page of his own. I'm doing research on this. Sadly I haven't got the time I'd like to have to do more for this article, but I will give it as much attention as my time allows. Karl Twist ( talk) 12:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. The band definitely existed and is referred to a few times in the seminal "Stranded in Paradise: New Zealand Rock'n'Roll 1955-1988" by John Dix. Some notability in that (according to Dix) their EP was self-financed and successful, the first time that had happened with a New Zealand band, and as such kick-started to boom in self-released records ("Stranded in Paradise", pp. 219, 294). Ex GH&H member Gary Hunt later joined top NZ punk band The Terrorways, as well. The venue, by the way, was Zwines, not Swines. Grutness... wha? 02:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Reply Could this instead be turned into a paragraph in the The Terrorways article, then? I would consider them to be a band with greater cultural significance than Gary Havoc & The Hurricanes. Robyn2000 ( talk) 07:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Yeah, I could support that. Grutness... wha? 02:19, 13 July 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 // 01:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Appears to fail NBAND and SIGCOV. Suspected either COI or COPYVIO (or it could just be poorly written). DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 03:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
    Comment - Please tell me where the COI is???? I have done most of work on this article from here to here. I picked it up from where it was left off and in a shambles as I have with other articles such as See Patrick Pinney discussion. Before I started it was here, and after managed to get it to here nothing to do with the band and it doesn't matter if whoever started did! Most of the work has been done by me. Also, where is the COPYVIO ?????? Karl Twist ( talk) 09:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as the consensus shows there's still questionability about sourcing and information thus, although the article may seem acceptable, it's best deleted until things can be bolted as confirmed. SwisterTwister talk 22:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply
    Comment - It would be a big mistake to delete to delete this article as this will lessen the chance of helpful information to strengthen the article. This band has an important place in New Zealand history as one of the key bands in the New Zealand late 70s rock scene. Along with The Terrorways, Satellite Spies and other bands on the scene in in NZ at the time, Gary Havoc & The Hurricanes were prominent back then as shown in Rip It Up. This one of the multiple articles that they were featured in, and had a solid amount of coverage. Another thing that needs to be realized is that GH&TH were also an important stepping stone for musicians such as Gary Hunt, and Graeme Scott who had a huge presence and impact on the NZ music scene. When you look at this group in perspective, the importance of then becomes obvious. I knew next to nothing about this group before I came across it in articles for deletion. Something was bugging me about them and I decided to look a little more into it to see if it was worthwhile saving. Not only did I discover it was worthwhile saving as I worked to improve it, I realized that with what limited sources I had to work with that many other influential and important NZ bands are overlooked. Often this is why sourcing info takes time. I now change my Keep for now to a strong keep as I have discovered the importance of this group in the NZ and Auckland City rock scene. You can measure the growth of the article from here before I decided to improve it to here. That's basically just the work of one man to improve it. Just imagine if 5 others found info and added to it. Think what you'd see then!!! Think about it! You would see more and more info. Delete this article and I guarantee you wont! Karl Twist ( talk) 10:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
You've thrown in a lot of garbage, actually. You've coatracked everything you could find with the band's name in it, and a lot of it is expressly not a reliable source. It's fine to work on an article, but you've extrapolated a lot of information from concert notices, and that's not appropriate. You still haven't made a case for anything more than local coverage with all that. Seeing that someone played a club, and writing a blurb about them playing at the club does not establish notability. You seem to be under the impression that this band should have an article because they exist, and that disputing the article is in turn disputing the band's existence. Basically, you have made it very clear that you feel that this band not having an article is Wikipedia saying this band doesn't exist. That's an irrelevant argument; the fundamental point is that existence is not notability, and we still have seen nothing to substantiate anything that would make the group meet the relevant notability guidelines. What you did say is stuff like "they had a local article with a picture of the group." So what? Why is the picture important? Writing an article about the existence of sources on the band is not an article about the band. So what you've expanded is a bunch of useless fluff for the most part. The fact that there's a poster with a concert date doesn't mean anything, but you've pretty much loaded all that in there as well. In short, read the requirements, and then read what you've done, because you've put in a lot of work that's done essentially nothing to address the concerns noted. MSJapan ( talk) 17:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Reply to the above. Now you are saying I'm throwing in garbage. Look, I'm not going to get into a silly argument with you because it appears that this is the direction in where it could head. Show me where the garbage is please? You were the one that originally nominated this for deletion and you said - " I think all the material in the article is made-up" ..., which is totally incorrect as you and I both know! Yes I admit that I have used concert notices from various websites, but this is to show where the band was playing. I do this for the interest of the readers who either have an interest in the band or have an interest in New Zealand rock music history. You said - "You seem to be under the impression that this band should have an article because they exist". ... That's not only a reckless thing to say. It's also grossly incorrect and by saying that you are being misleading. Possibly unintentionally. The reason why I voted to save this article and did work to improve it is because I believe they have a place in NZ rock history and they are notable. If I didn't think so I wouldn't have bothered with this. Actually, I would have given up halfway though what I have done to date! And replying to your - "What you did say is stuff like "they had a local article with a picture of the group." So what? Why is the picture important?" ... Goodness! I'm just mentioning that the article in the Auckland Star, 25 September 1979, Profile of Auckland new wave band "Gary Havoc and the Hurricanes"., had a picture. Nothing more! How does mentioning the picture become an issue? I thought Wikipedia was about information. Interested people like information. Anyway, I just wrote that how I read it. Nothing more! IMO you seem to be cherry picking certain edits I made to say that this is all I have done to improve the article. Not so! So far I have seen 2 members here saying that the band was a hoax and also using terms like suspected COI or COPYVIO. All untrue! I said it before and I will say it again. I believe this band to be notable and an important part of NZ Rock music history. I'm sorry, but from the get go you were incorrect and the reasons you have given to have the article deleted don't really make sense because you are using your own view without taking info account other factors. Look, if you were to go through the records at Auckland library as well as the Sydney library, I believe you would be quite enlightened. BTW: Havoc working on Xena will be something to look into. I don't think that Havoc is his real name. This would be his stage name. Why don't you help us improve instead of trying to remove? Karl Twist ( talk)
The fact remains the following: I said "possible" hoax, and you took it to mean "definite" and have been pissed-off about that ever since. So don't tell me I'm the one misreading. This group does not meet WP:NBAND. The fact is that every item that was originally in the article that would have proven notability has not been able to have been sourced, and has been removed. You've got a band with a local career, and you can't source a major label release, a major tour, or anything else. Instead you have filled out content in the article by using local concert announcements, and those don't meet WP:RS per WP:NMUSIC #1. The fact that Gary worked on Xena by himself is irrelevant to the band. I stand by my original statements, because COPYVIO is COPYVIO whether it's true or not. A COI is COI whether the information is true or not. You are the one in error here, and all your additions are WP:FANCRUFT that don't make a difference to establishing WP:NBAND. MSJapan ( talk) 14:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Whoaah Dude / Dudette !! Steady on there! I'm not p'd off about anything. LOL why are you even going there? Please do not throw around the term WP:FANCRUFT. That's irresponsible. I hope you won't reach any deeper. Look, please take note. To me this is nothing more than a group who's music I don't really care for. Give me Blood Sweat & Tears, Chicago, Earth Wind & Fire, Sly & The Family Stone, and now were talking! That's real music! The Australasian pub rock genre is something that doesn't even excite me. My approach to this article, and the info on the band contained within is purely from an appreciation of noteworthy info angle. Nothing more.! I'm not the one who started this damned article. I am slightly annoyed at User talk:Andru0711, the creator of this article for not putting in more references which has cost me time and effort. But it has been worth it in a way. This is because I have learnt a bit more about the group and the members who are prominent on the Kiwi rock scene. I have also become aware that many notable Kiwi bands have hard to find referencing and we often need to go to books that have been written about these groups. Not only do we then discover (as I have here) the notability of them but also the important historical value!. The group is notable and two of the former members in the band could have articles on their own. BTW: There's more than local concert announcements. Much more! They got good coverage in Rip It Up, and more than what I have been able to access on line. Also we need someone to go and check out the article in the Auckland Star, 25 September 1979, Profile of Auckland new wave band "Gary Havoc and the Hurricanes". I believe the paper had a massive circulation. BTW: Where is the COI and where is the COPYVIO?? Thanks Karl Twist ( talk) 02:52, 15 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) 07:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Cigar Dave

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

Appears to lack significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Sources are either the subject or radio stations that carry the show promoting it. Probably a good guy, probably good at his job, but not necessarily notable. Doesn't appear to pass WP:CREATIVE. Niteshift36 ( talk) 01:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

--DELETE. a lot of self-promotion, no independent sources of note.[[ NotHoratio ( talk) 02:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)]] reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:17, 5 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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 19:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply

WikiPock

AfDs for this article:
WikiPock (  | 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 previous AfD closed no consensus. 7 years later, I don't see the kind of coverage I would expect from a product of that age with "a growing user base", other than advertising typical of apps. No one noted the SPA whose only edit was to create this article at the time. MSJapan ( talk) 03:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep – as meeting WP:GNG and per WP:NTEMP. Weak delete: Two articles found thus far that provide significant coverage and are published by independent, reliable sources (see below). Of course, more sources would be optimal; maybe other users will find more. Perhaps this could be merged somewhere? North America 1000 04:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • The source articles have entirely different content. Check out the English-translated version of the El País article. "Diario" means "daily" in Spanish; this word in the url of the source is very likely to denote internally within their company that it was an article published in their daily edition, because it is a daily publication. North America 1000 04:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I have changed my !vote to "weak delete". North America 1000 21:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 00:24, 27 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 // 01:19, 5 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 History of podcasting#Timeline. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 02:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Odiogo

Odiogo (  | 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 product, website defunct, seems to have been taken over by Wordpress exclusively, so the scope of the product as noted in the article isn't verifiable. Was deprodded on the basis of one CNET article in 2007, which is still the only source on it. MSJapan ( talk) 03:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply

References

Comment - If you're going to vote, then make a choice; keep and merge are not the same thing. MSJapan ( talk) 20:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC) reply
My preference is to keep. A merge may or may not happen later but needn't involve AfD. ~ Kvng ( talk) 14:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 00:24, 27 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 // 01:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. I agree with Northamerica1000's reasoning - the one source doesn't demonstrate that this topic needs a standalone article. Enterprisey ( talk!) (formerly APerson) 19:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as there's nothing actually to suggest its significant connections to the history article itself. Any information can simply be mentioned there as needed, but there's nothing at all to suggest any actual independent notability thus there's no explanation why we should keep this. SwisterTwister talk 22:42, 12 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 per WP:SK#1. North America 1000 05:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply

SPE John Franklin Carll Award

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

should merge with Society of Petroleum Engineers. Doesn't merit an article Rathfelder ( talk) 21:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL ( talk) 00:09, 5 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_5&oldid=1142622207"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 4 July 6 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.  Sandstein  09:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Innocent and Vain: An Introduction to Nico

Innocent and Vain: An Introduction to Nico (  | 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 satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 ( talk) 23:56, 5 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  10:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

The Seventh-day Remnant Church

The Seventh-day Remnant Church (  | 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 GNG and ORG. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. On scrutiny, appears to only exist as a web forum, not an actual denomination. Regards, James ( talk/ contribs) 23:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 15:31, 6 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  09:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Hidromek

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

Recreated without reliable sources on 5 July 2016. Previously deleted 3 times for failure to meet notability criteria 2008, 2010, 2014. Basic WP:BEFORE reveals little in the way of in-depth, reliable 3rd party sources. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 22:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 23:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 23:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I found [1] in Takvim and [2] in Cumhuriyet. Google Translate says they're about the company, but... I don't like trusting Google Translate. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 06:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. The article as it currently stands does not establish notability, but the corresponding article on Turkish Wikipedia, with citations to what look like articles substantially about the subject from both Hürriyet and Milliyet, looks as if it might well meet our notability standards - provided the cited articles don't turn out to be nothing more than recycled press releases (which I don't feel able to judge either way when, as with Turkish, I don't know the language). And while, beyond this, Google searches provide a wide enough range of results for notability to look likely, the small minority of English-language results among them unfortunately do look like press releases. This is something for which we need a relatively experienced Turkish-speaking editor, as it looks as if any reliable sources will be very largely in Turkish. PWilkinson ( talk) 10:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Even the Turkish article arguably doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. One of the links is misrepresented as being from the New York Times but the vast majority of the references come from a single source. Even if the Turkish article did have significant coverage, there still remains the WP:BURDEN that this article, on the English Wikipedia, must meet our standards. Since this article had repeated failed to do so, I am recommending a delete with the caveat that it could be recreated IF the appropriate references are found and included. Mkdw talk 17:52, 12 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 as a week has suggested nothing else (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 22:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Ted Rogers School of Hospitality & Tourism Management

Ted Rogers School of Hospitality & Tourism Management (  | 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 subschool of a school at a university. The school this subschool is part of is already redirected to the university. Had boldly redirected this but was reverted so here we are. Redirect to Ryerson University is a quite satisfactory outcome. John from Idegon ( talk) 22:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:34, 6 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. — Spaceman Spiff 07:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Ram Narayan Mishra

Ram Narayan Mishra (  | 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 small landowner who had a farm of 1000 trees and who was the benefactor of a local temple. The only chance of notability is the claim that he was also a Sanskrit scholar, but I haven't even been able to verify that. The first few pages of a google search in English seem to all be about other Ram Narayan Mishras. Trying in Hindi gets three pages of results revealing only the writer of a travelogue. No results for the one spelling variant I tried [3]. Pinging Tseung Kwan O who might be able to help find sources. Uanfala ( talk) 22:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Uanfala ( talk) 22:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Uanfala ( talk) 22:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
As I have said, this person does in fact exist [1], however, there are a huge amount of factual inaccuracies in this Wiki page that require revision, and also unreliable sourcing as per WP:BLPPROD requirements. You may still nominate a PROD for this article on these grounds, as I have only deprodded it on the basis that this person may exist, and that this Wiki page only misrepresents this person (additional revision required), without fulfilling PROD requirements. Thank you! Tseung Kwan O ( talk) 22:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Well, this verifies the existence of a Ram Narayan Mishra from Fiji who became a policeman in the US. However, the person this article is about is a Sanskrit scholar from India. There are quite a few people out there with this name and I think the closest match I can find is a person who was involved in the Nagari Pracharini Sabha [4], but he lived at the end of the 19 c. and the current article reads like it's about someone who's a bit more contemporary. Uanfala ( talk) 22:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ http://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?gl=ROOT_CATEGORY&rank=1&new=1&so=1&MSAV=0&msT=1&gss=ms_f-2_s&gsfn=Ram&gsln=Mishra&msdpn__ftp=PA
  • So there does exist a Sanskrit scholar who's published books in the 90s [5], who is (or used to be) a reader at Ganganath Jha Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapith, llahabad, [6] although he isn't mentioned on the institution's website [7]. Now, is he the same person as the one the article is about? The article doesn't give us enough to verify. There might be a case for completely rewriting it but the crucial question then is whether that other Ramnarayan Mishra is notable enough, and I'm not sure I see how he meets the requirements at WP:NPROF. Uanfala ( talk) 14:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Uanfala ( talk) 15:16, 7 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. Katie talk 11:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply

New Heights Educational Group

New Heights Educational Group (  | 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 organisation that fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Created and maintained by users with conflicts of interest, and no evidence of actual substantial coverage about them, as required by Wikipedia Joseph2302 ( talk) 21:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 ( talk) 21:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 ( talk) 21:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 ( talk) 21:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Go ahead and delete it Atchopra ( talk) 02:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Comment. I've no particular opinion on whether the Stevie and the Ohio State secretary mention just barely constitute notability. However, Maproom, it seems that was I who added the States News Service ref, currently #3, to the page. My Highbeam access seems to have expired, so I can't check, but I'm pretty sure that I added it because it does mention the group (I just can't think how I'd have found it otherwise). Joseph2302, I've no knowledge of, connection with, or interest in, the group – I tidied up the page after mistakenly nominating for speedy deletion (G11/G12) without first checking the talk-page. I've tried to keep it tidy since then. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 16:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC) reply
I see I was wrong – I read the paragraphs that were displayed when I clicked on ref. 3, but failed to notice that's there's more behind a paywall. Maproom ( talk) 16:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Justlettersandnumbers I meant the other SPAs who've been editing this article. I had no intention of saying you were editing with a COI. Joseph2302 ( talk) 17:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Maproom, Joseph2302, no problem. On reflection, I can't see how a mention among seven non-profits in a monthly round-up in one state alone could help to justify any claim of notability, so I think it all hinges on the Stevie. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 22:13, 14 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 as although there's not a large consensus, the collections are always a sign of notability and the 1 Delete vote has not commented or objected to these thus, with no other outstanding Deletes, this is a Keep (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 22:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Damien Smith (artist)

Damien Smith (artist) (  | 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 artist. Does not pass GNG. Maybeparaphrased ( talk) 21:01, 5 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) 20:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Faculty of Engineering - Kharazmi University

Faculty of Engineering - Kharazmi University (  | 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 references to reliable sources showing it is notable, previous PROD. Aloneinthewild ( talk) 20:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 15:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 15:33, 6 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 16:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Paul Mason (canoeist)

Paul Mason (canoeist) (  | 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 canoeist has been tagged for notability for more than 18 months. Does not pass GNG Maybeparaphrased ( talk) 20:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:55, 6 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) ansh 666 02:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Eric Deis

Eric Deis (  | 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 artist that does not pass WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG Maybeparaphrased ( talk) 20:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

  • I've added about a dozen refs since the nomination. Newly added sources are decent. For example: the Vancouver Sun, Huffpost, Wired Magazine. I also found a significant award that he received in 2007, and that his work is in the Vancouver Art Gallery collection. Given the visibility of his public projects, the coverage by reliable sources and the award and collection, I think this meets WP:GNG. So, Keep. HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 02:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. Most of the sources are quite local, and the piece in the Vancouver Art Gallery was a gift of the artist rather than an acquisition [8]. Still, the Wired piece and another in the Globe and Mail [9] demonstrate both notability beyond BC, and significance that extends beyond a single story, I think enough to pass WP:GNG. They're on his art rather than on him but that's ok: their art, rather than their personal lives, is what artists should be notable for. — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
David Eppstein, wow, your analysis is very astute and spot on. I do disagree on one point: the use of local coverage to determine notability. If local were a criteria for sources, then we would have to eliminate someone, for example, who was covered solely in local sources like the New York Times, The New Yorker, Vogue Magazine, the Wall Street Journal and so on. I think it's safe to question the size of a publication (the Nanaimo source is fairly weak), but to say that something is local and therefore does not count is not reasonable. Also, whether a piece is a collection is a gift or acquisition is of little consequence, I think: It's the acceptance that counts. The validation comes in the wanting. HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 14:37, 6 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 17:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

William A. Dodge

William A. Dodge (  | 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 military person, though I'm sure a good one. The article reads like a resume and is unlikely to be improvable because the sourcing just isn't there. I have looked and found nothing besides a few blog posts and perfunctory profile pages at the US Navy websites. Almost all of the other hits are about other William Dodges. I think this article fails our sourcing and notability requirements. Reyk YO! 20:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:46, 5 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 as a week has suggested nothing else (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 22:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply

International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy

International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy (  | 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 scientific organization tagged since June 2008. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 20:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - easily satisfies GNG. There are three reliable, independent sources that discuss it at length and are already cited for much of the material in this article: Lastovicka (2009); Thébault et al. (2015); Gubbins and Herrero-Bervera (2007). The 2008 tags should have been removed long ago. RockMagnetist( talk) 21:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Any issues with notability or references should have been raised on the article's talk page. As this has not been done the tag is questionable, and that is the only basis given for deletion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I have added some references to address notability. — Gorthian ( talk) 02:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This organization has an ongoing significant impact in its field - I guess I could say impact in its covered "fields" (plural). The new addition of reliable sources affirm the notability of this organization. Also, this organization has national and international prominence WP:NGO, not to mention it rigorously produces endorsed scientific standards. Steve Quinn ( talk) 03:34, 9 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. Katie talk 11:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Bob Hansell

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

OTRS agent: Deletion requested in ticket:2016070510017734. ( t)  Josve05a ( c) 20:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 15:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 15:34, 6 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  09:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Gnoppix

Gnoppix (  | 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 operating system. This article was previously deleted under WP:PROD and then undeleted as a contested PROD. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 20:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

References

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as a week suggested nothing else (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 22:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Pusher (film)

Pusher (film) (  | 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 disambiguation page is an incomplete disambiguation containing a parenthetical disambiguator other than "(disambiguation)". GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 19:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:16, 6 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 the commenters, the initially provided sources appear to be passing mentions and not WP:SIGCOV. After the delete closure, I will editorially take up Czar's suggestion to recreate the title as a redirect to ZX Spectrum#Copying and backup. ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 20:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply

World of Spectrum

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

Lots of sources, but most of them are primary or trivial; or, indeed, concentrate on the fact the website was a copyright violation. Practically none of them are serious, reliable, in-depth third-party coverage. I await the SPA/IP barrage. Laura Jamieson (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

I'd rather my website was deleted tbh. If you can allow people to vandalise it and try to destroy a 20yr relationship with copyright holders without stepping in then it's best of deleted. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fogartylee ( talk • contribs) 19:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

  • I did, but everything I found was either not a reliable source or was about the copyright issue, which is sort of a BLP1E version for a website. Your three links; all three mention "World of Spectrum" once in passing. No way that's in-depth coverage; need to do better than that, I'm afraid. Just typing "World of Spectrum" into Google and saying "hey look, results" doesn't work. There may well be good sources out there, but I haven't found them, and nor have you. Laura Jamieson (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 19:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Hi @ Iridescent:, how would the sources you looked up make World of Spectrum pass WP:GNG? The BBC says "He has sourced the files for the game from the same retro site where he found the circuit designs, World of Spectrum, a magnet for the computer's international fan base", Metro points to the site for free games, "You do get those 1,000 games but these are essentially free anyway, as we’ve been advised that it’s perfectly legal to download and play (by putting them on a SD card and slotting it into the Vega) any of the games from World of Spectrum", and so does Wired: "The 1,000 included games seems generous, but most of these are actually free to download legally from World of Spectrum, and the list is also missing a lot of the titles fans would consider 'key' to the system's history". soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Just because a source is primary does not make it inadmissible, or in some way count negatively. Equally although the BBC ref mentioned does only mention WoS once, it's hardly "in passing" - Heck "sourced the files for the game from the same retro site where he found the circuit designs, World of Spectrum, a magnet for the computer's international fan base." - the same is true of the other two links - neither are in passing.
  • No, both are in passing, because they're not actually about WoS. We need reliable sources that are in-depth, i.e. are about the website. I'm sure there's a chance they exist, but someone needs to find them. Laura Jamieson (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I would turn that on its head and say that notability is ascertained by the fact then that even though an article is not about WoS, the topic was felt important enough to be mentioned and have relevance. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 05:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • By that logic every website mentioned in a BBC article should have it's own wikipedia page? In twenty years the site does not seem to have done anything remotely notable which has led to any coverage by reliable third-parties (and by that I mean outside the niche of retro-computer fans). Virtually all the citations on the page originate from the site itself; the exceptions being the site's only 'claim to fame' - mistakenly being sent a cease-and-desist letter from IDSA - not even BLP1E but accidental BLP1E!. MrMajors ( talk) 07:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Nowhere do I suggest such a thing, because that is silly - and shame on you for using such a claim. What I suggest is that even though the article in question is primarily about topic "X", it was felt that topic "Y" (in this case WoS) was worthy of mention because it was inherently relevant to topic "X". Of course that does not then imply that I think every topic "A", "B" & "C" is deserving of an article. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 11:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • It's not "inherently relevant" though, Ben Heck could have sourced the circuit designs and files from many websites - he happened to get them from World of Spectrum, and the article happened to mention that. It does not make World of Spectrum in any way more notable. MrMajors ( talk) 12:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The copyright section is important because there was a concerted effort to stay within the law, perhaps not well enough enforced (OR) but nevertheless RARE titles were not available for example and a list of permissions was available. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 20:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
And as a note to Lee Fogarty - it ain't your website. WP:OWN is applicable here.

I can't see anything on that page that is relevant here - the site is hosted by my, all of the scripts, databases and files were handed to me, Martijn isn't coming back. I can register wikipedia.me.uk - does that make the owner of wikipedia? The domain points to MY server - paid for by me. What more do you need to see that I am the owner? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fogartylee ( talk • contribs) 20:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

  • I'm talking about the wikipedia page, not actual WoS itself. You stated above "I'd rather my website was deleted tbh. " - WoS may be yours, but Wikipedia and the WoS entry are not. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 05:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Also - saying permissions pages "were" available is wrong - the link has always worked - http://www.worldofspectrum.org/permits/#sofar the only thing we did - when Martijn was still owner - was to remove the actual emails because copyright holders were being spammed or abused, so we took out the details.

  • Yes, that's a fair point and one I agree on - the use of past tense was probably not the best, but it was based on the fact that I was looking backwards over the history of Wos. I agree that the permissions are still available - and important. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 05:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • This is not true, the emails from the copyright holders were available until the site was mirrored in 2014 - they are not accessible now ("Cannot open: No such file or directory"). This is not relevant to the discussion on this page though. MrMajors ( talk) 07:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

The biggest problem is with stating the site is commercial - it never has been and never will be. The preservation team are a separate entity and had a shop to cover the costs of sourcing the material. This isn't a part of WoS. By stating the site is commercial is damaging to the standing we have with copyright holders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fogartylee ( talk • contribs) 21:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Keep The World of Spectrum is the foremost ZX Spectrum resource, it's the first named when asking about where to find information about Spectrum games. Considering the fresh interest in Spectrum retro-gaming (Spectrum Vega, Vega+, Spectrum Next and the Recreated Spectrum) people will be looking for resource sites, and the World of Spectrum is that site. These projects are driven by people who participated in the ZX Spectrum market of the 1980s (Sir Clive Sinclair, Rick Dickinson and Richard Wilcox) So it would be counter-productive for readers for this article to be deleted. Isofarro ( talk) 05:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • This isn't about the site's utility as a resource, or your opinion. See Wikipedia:Notability: No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition. MrMajors ( talk) 08:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Changing my vote to Delete. Without coverage from independent reputable sources the site fails the requirements of notability. My familiarity of the site is because of my long interest in ZX Spectrum retro-gaming and being a regular visitor to the site since 1998. I am surprised by the lack of public notability signals, but that's more likely to be an indication of how insular we the ZX Spectrum community are. Seeing the current site owner last night serve up 403 Access Forbidden to visitors from Wikipedia is an abrogation of good faith, and denigrates Wikipedia's preferred policy of a Neutral Point of View on editing articles. Wikipedia is qualitatively better off without this article, and not a victim for the destructive whims of the site owner. Isofarro ( talk) 08:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Where is the notability? Lemon64 has no page, LemonAmiga has no page, CPCWiki has no page. What has World of Spectrum done that makes it worthy of an entry here? MrMajors ( talk) 09:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Two of the sources you provided yourself are about the ZX Spectrum as video game platform. "The 1,000 included games seems generous" and "You do get those 1,000 games but these are essentially free anyway", so why would those sources be okay to keep the article, but not to delete it? But we're not discussing the ZX Spectrum, it's about World of Spectrum. The sources listed at WP:VG/RS (and the custom Google search engine) are not "present-day gaming press"; not just present, and certainly not exclusively video game journalism (including general technology and computing websites like Wired, Ars Technica and CNET). When you look up "zx spectrum", you get plenty of results that discuss the computer. If World of Spectrum would be of note, it would get more hits. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • If you enclose the words "World of Spectrum" in quotes, there are a lot of hits. They may mostly be "in passing", but that is to expected about a web site about a 1982 computer that was for the most part, only available in Europe (with most being sold in the UK). If a Wikipedia page about "World of Spectrum" is not considered important, why has there been an entry on Wikipedia since 31 December 2006‎? The Wikipedia entry about the computer itself, the ZX Spectrum makes reference to the World of Spectrum web site [1]. Further if you search Wikipedia for "World of Spectrum" there are many thousands of hits. It would be rather strange to to have all these references to "World of Spectrum" but not have an entry telling readers what "World of Spectrum" is. I'm sure there are other more suitable source references, but a quick search on a search engine will be swamped by other results and finding references in traditional paper based written media is rather harder as in areas like this most modern communication is on the internet, but not necessarily indexed by search engines. As to Lemon64 and the rest, the relevant question is why do they not have a Wikipedia entry. Maybe they should have entries. There is an entry about Blake's 7, a TV show that was made between 1978 and 1981 for broadcast on the BBC UK TV service. So why should Lemon64 be missing? 1024MAK ( talk) 09:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  1. ^ World of Spectrum
Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's guidelines on the deletion process. WP: LONGTIME and WP: OTHERSTUFF are both not arguments. The fact that they're only in passing is the whole point, the website needs to be notable by itself, not because it writes about a notable subject. And again, we're not discussing the ZX Spectrum, but World of Spectrum. There is no reason why a source used on Wikipedia would need its own article either. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • There are thousands of hits for World of Spectrum on wikipedia because a few people made thousands of edits to add the 'wos template' for video games. This template was also reviewed for deletion which it narrowly avoided. Just because one or two World of Spectrum supporters have been very busy here does not make the site notable.
If you are "sure there are other more suitable source references" then this is your opportunity to present them. MrMajors ( talk) 10:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Yeah, sadly spot on.... "The community that built the largest encyclopedia in history is shrinking," ...we (or the deletionist authors who are left) seem to be now more focused on "consolidating" the vision of a pure encyclopedia by enforcing arbitrary policies (like this infamous "significant coverage" policy) instead of the creation valuable content or motivating new authors by better structures. In this process we carelessly repel the last positively motivated authors and all newbies. In the last AfD I was involved a whole community was repelled, without need, it was scary. :/ Shaddim ( talk) 13:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Shaddim:, frankly I expected more from a more experienced user like yourself, but I have to remind you as well to stick to the actual discussion! This page is for discussing World of Spectrum only, not to lament Wikipedia's changing nature. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 16:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Please stick to the actual discussion, @ 1024MAK:. While you're saying you need more time, you do seem to have time enough to "research Wikipedia". With an article like that, you're just wasting your own and our time. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

"*"delete. The lies you are allowing to be published regarding the commercial status are damaging to the reputation of WoS and the agreements we have spent 20yrs getting from copyright holders. Fogartylee ( talk) 11:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

We're not discussing the content of the article, @ Fogartylee:, but the article itself. Any inaccuracies can be addressed, assuming what you're saying is true. You can also edit the article in the meantime. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Soetermans: Except I can't because I am the site owner... And when I did try to amend it, the vandal puts it back and complains.

Fogartylee, I think you're getting confused between 'lies' and 'facts you don't agree with'. You do not own the site according to ICANN. The commercial connections have clearly been identified and cited on the article, even van der Heide referred to the shop as "our own team's". As for your agreements with copyright holders, where are they? Have you deleted them because they were all addressed to "Martijn van der Heide" and you don't actually have any permission to distribute anything? MrMajors ( talk) 12:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
That's an interesting point, I have to admit. If a developer gives permission for distribution to WoS - is he giving permission to the site, or to the owner of the site? And what happens if the site changes ownership? It's not unreasonable to assume that emails were addressed to Martijn as a person rather than to WoS as an entity, but does that mean permission was only granted to Martijn to distribute via WoS? I bet lawyers love this stuff. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 12:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Chaheel Riens: Firstly, the site wasn't mirrored. It changed ownership. If I turn the site off, it no longer exists. Secondly, Martijn and I had a discussion years ago regarding the emails, and we decided they had to be taken down because we were getting complaints from copyright holders of abuse and spam - most noticeably with companies or individuals that had denied access then receiving emails demanding they change their mind. Given the trouble Majors has been causing, you can see why I wouldn't want him having access to the list! Regarding the permissions - they are all for World of Spectrum and not to Martijn - in the majority of cases, the emails are addressed to others - and one person in particular, because he did the work in contacting these people. As for the links to the shop - the preservation team have provided the majority of the titles to WoS, but they aren't WoS. Wikipedia has many links to shops but I doubt they get any money from them. Majors knows full well that WoS isn't commercial and doesn't even take donations. Fogartylee ( talk) 13:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

I agree - I'm not wasting time editing thousands of emails to please a pedant on here. Delete them if you wish Fogartylee ( talk) 14:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete While yes the site was mentioned in the links given earlier by Iridescent, these were passing mentions and not a sign of notability, as in [[WP:GNG} "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The mentions in the sources earlier appear to be trivial. RickinBaltimore ( talk) 15:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and redirect to ZX_Spectrum#Copying_and_backup. Getting some outside traction on Twitter related to Fogarty stepping down, so this discussion is becoming a proxy. I see a few things confused here: (1) the Wikipedia article on WoS, (2) the current management of WoS, and (3) the legacy of WoS. We're here for the former and not the latter. Wikipedia is interested in, simply, whether enough coverage exists in multiple reliable, independent sources such to write an article on the subject without entirely relying on primary/self-published materials. It is clear from the above that we are currently lacking in sources on WoS—articles about the website/database/community, etc., anything more than passing mentions, really. In that case, we don't have enough to write an article. WoS is mentioned in those passing mentions as important to the Spectrum fan community, so the title would be a useful redirect to its mention in the section on ZX Spectrum, which could really use its own section on Spectrum fandom, if you can find sources. For editors in this conversation new to Wikipedia, welcome, but please stay on topic—this discussion is about whether sources exist to write an article on World of Spectrum. Please take other conversations elsewhere. czar 19:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I found coverage in Handbook of Digital Games, published by John Wiley & Sons. There's also this magazine archived at archive.org, but it's in Spanish, and I can't figure out what it's talking about. However, if you search for "world of spectrum", there are several hits in this issue. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 03:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply

MrMajors was banned from the wos forums for joining and not posting - not in itself a banning offence. He was however taking selected screenshots to send to others to cause trouble. He is on twitter and has made 14 posts in total - all attacking me or WoS. https://twitter.com/majorrobbb His contribution to wikipedia has been 1 game, and all of the rest have been to vandalise the WoS page. Finally, he has claimed to not know who Martijn is - anyone that knows anything about WoS knows Martijn, and if as he claims, he doesn't then he has no knowledge of the subject he is editing. We have his IP address from the forums, and it matches a known troublemaker Fogartylee ( talk) 15:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply

You still don't seem to have grasped the point of this discussion. MrMajors ( talk) 16:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete Fails WP:DEPTH, WP:PERSISTENCE; unlike Jet Set Willy of course which represented the peak of our civilization... Muffled Pocketed 07:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Being referenced is not "significant coverage" by reliable third-parties. What has the site 'influenced'? The sources given by User:NinjaRobotPirate are weak as one is in Spanish: as NinjaRobotPirate says "I can't figure out what it's talking about". The Handbook of Digital Gaming uses the words "self-proclaimed" and "self-identified" when describing the site and the only sources cited by the book are an interview with site owner Martijn van der Heide in 2012 and a pdf about the tzx format from the site itself. MrMajors ( talk) 10:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • "*Being referenced is not "significant coverage" by reliable third-parties." Because you say so? It is exactly that, being referenced is coverage. ("significant" is always highly subjective and not properly defined in our polices) "are weak as one is in Spanish" Not at all! A different language weakens not at all the quality of an ref, vice versa it show the reach far beyond the English speaking world. Wikipedia should represent the situation world wide not only in the English language one. "he site and the only sources cited by the book" it doesn't matter what the book cites, this is a secondary source which discusses in detail the topic. Shaddim ( talk) 13:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC) reply
This is a totaly different request than the unfounded blame "weak source". Shaddim ( talk) 15:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC) reply
No it isn't. NinjaRobotPirate cited a source to support the notabilty of the site purely because it contains the text "world of spectrum" while claiming they "can't figure out what it's talking about". The source, as presented by NinjaRobotPirate, is weak. MrMajors ( talk) 17:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC) reply
the source is maybe not translated or evaluated, but not per se "weak". You used weak in conjunction with spanish, which was a improper argumentationm as spanish sources are not weaker (or stronger) than english one. Shaddim ( talk) 20:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Perhaps I should have said "The sources given by NinjaRobotPirate are not helpful" then. The source is self-published, and does not actually mention world of spectrum other than once in passing and once as a url so it can't be claimed as "significant coverage" or a "reliable source" anyway. MrMajors ( talk) 20:55, 9 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  09:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Physics Plot

Physics Plot (  | 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 software product tagged since June 2008. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 19:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:17, 6 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. Euryalus ( talk) 06:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Peter McMahon

Peter McMahon (  | 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. Fails WP:GNG (lack of significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (no appearances in a fully-professional league). Giant Snowman 18:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick •  t •  c •  s 08:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick •  t •  c •  s 08:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick •  t •  c •  s 08:52, 7 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. No consensus after minimal participation and two relistings. No prejudice against speedy renomination ( WP:NPASR). MelanieN ( talk) 23:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Freewire

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

Not necessarily factual and cannot find any sources after 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheUSConservative ( talk • contribs) 17:38, 8 June 2016‎

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

Note: This article was originally PRODed on the grounds that it was hopelessly out of date. The PROD went the full seven days without challenge and the article became deletable. The PRODer also created this AfD at about the same time (probably due to inexperience as it is a fairly recent account). It is my belief that TheUSConservative blanked this AfD having realised it was superfluoous. The AfD was reinstated and the PROD deleted by someone else on the grounds that an AfD is in place.

This article should be deleted because the PROD ran its course unchallenged. --Elektrik Fanne 11:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Admins do not delete PRODs just because they sat for 7 days and no one objected. Admins only delete where there is a valid reason to delete an article. In this case the PROD reason was that the article hadn't been updated in 2 years, that is a reason to edit the article not delete it. The removal of the PROD was correct. --  GB  fan 17:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply
@ GB fan:That was not the reason given for the deletion of the PROD. However valid your reasoning is, the given reason for deleting the PROD was not valid (that an AfD had been inadvertently created by an inexperienced editor). --Elektrik Fanne 10:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Actually there is no invalid reason to remove a prod. A prod can be removed for any reason or no reason at all. --  GB  fan 11:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 16:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment most of the content I'm seeing on Google News has nothing to do with the UK media company described in the article, but rather with a US-based startup. It seems to be that there are multiple different companies, and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not appear to suggest that the one the article currently discusses should be the first thing a reader sees. Jclemens ( talk) 17:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete it seems at best because my searches have found nothing particularly better, there's also then nothing else convincing for the noticeably needed notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep clearly notably at one point, there's tons of articles from reliable sources from the 2000's about the IPTV service. Just because it hasn't made news lately doesn't mean the article should be deleted. Needs updating, sure, but deletion seems like an overreach. Maybe even needs to become a disambiguation page because of the other US-based Freewire company. But deletion? No. LAroboGuy ( talk) 21:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete cannot find anything on if it's even a company anymore. We cannot factually update the article and it's notability now is in question and it's factuality could be compromised. TheUSConservative ( talk) 17:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Striking this "delete" !vote; as nominator your "delete" !vote is already counted. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens ( talk) 15:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Euryalus ( talk) 06:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Mark S. Guralnick

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

Highly promotional bio with indication of notability per WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. Recently speedied db-G11, and it's only just this side of G11 now. He's a lawyer, and he's written some books: neither automatically confers notability. Sources are all WP:Primary, with no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by anonymous editor. OnionRing ( talk) 15:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. OnionRing ( talk) 15:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. OnionRing ( talk) 15:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. OnionRing ( talk) 15:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, in addition article reads a bit too promotional for me. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG. Being a lawyer and an author does not automatically make him notable. ubiquity ( talk) 14:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete If the book was as widely important as suggested it would get coverage beyond one minor mention in a state level oil industry publication. So we can not even establish notability for his law book on facking. Establishing that he is notable for writing it, which seems to be the goal of the article would require us to have either widespread quoting from him on fracking in publications, or his work being quoted enough by others to show he is a leading expert on law as it relates to fracking. We do not have these, and until we do we have no reason to think he is notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete There are faint whiffs of notability, but the coverage doesn't support a claim. The article as it exists comes off a bit promotional. It might be possible to improve the sourcing to support the claim, but I haven't found anything that would meet the standard. Alansohn ( talk) 18:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and Salt temporarily at best (although locking entirely would be best as it may simply be restarted once the salt ends); my searches and examinations have found nothing actually better and, with there being nothing else actually minimally convincing, delete is best. SwisterTwister talk 00:35, 13 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. The sense of the discussion was that the subject has not been covered in independent, reliable sources sufficiently to establish his notability. The coverage that was identified has been repudiated by the participants as a whole. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply

John L. Furth

John L. Furth (  | 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 originally started as a draft and was declined, but an uninvolved editor came in and created the article (so no GAMING). I am, however, not convinced that Furth meets GNG; three of the four references are from either primary or non- RS sources, and the fourth is what appears to be a local charity giving out an award (so mostly not primary?). The only sources I can find online about Furth are directly connected to him or just brief mentions (usually about the endowments he's given).

All in all, a man with money to spend is not inherently notable. Primefac ( talk) 15:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Snow Keep 21:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC) I just created the Furth BLP yesterday after researching the man's notability. The BLP I created is separate and apart from the draft started by Furth's relative; however, I did extend an invitation to that editor for input which is the polite thing to do. I had a brief discussion with Robert McClenon here and am actively working to expand the article, which actually inspired another BLP I'm in the process of creating. I also just began recruiting other editors for collaboration. Under the circumstances, it would be very kind and thoughtful of you to close this RfD and allow me to complete my work expanding this BLP instead of wasting valuable editing time. GNG guidelines do not exclude philanthropy or the notable work one does to accomplish good things on a grand scale. Furth's notability is not just being a successful businessman and philanthropist, he also co-authored a book, and is the founder of Warburg Pincus Private Client Group which in 1999 was merged into Credit Suisse. [12] Atsme 📞 📧 16:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Note for closer - I felt it was important to respectfully mention that the editor who filed this AfD made reference to Draft:John L Furth which was submitted by a newbie editor and family member of the subject, Aroger0821. It was his first ever submission and was rejected twice for obvious reasons. The article subject of this AfD is an entirely new article I created about the same subject, John L. Furth, who is unmistakably notable as a philanthropist and business leader who has served as chairman and vice chairman of highly notable investment firms, universities and hospitals. The basis of this AfD is actually a disagreement over some of the sources that were cited which creates an issue weighted more for RS/N than AfD. Thank you in advance for your time in reviewing this filing. Atsme 📞 📧 17:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply
I mentioned the Draft only because it was relevant to how I came across the Article. I specifically mentioned that you were uninvolved with the original page and created a new one from scratch. I'm not sure how you "respectfully" restating my original nomination makes any difference to how this is closed. If anything, it reads to me like an attempt at discrediting me somehow and/or trying to get a procedural close out of it. As an aside, for someone who has so little time to spend on the subject, you certainly seem to have come up with an awful lot of excuses to post on this AFD. Primefac ( talk) 02:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply
GNG says nothing about what a person does, but it requires certain levels of coverage in media to demonstrate notability. I looked for such sources and I was unconvinced, though I am happy to be proven wrong. Primefac ( talk) 16:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
A BLP doesn't have to be high profile to be notable - they can be low profile and still be highly notable such as the following:
  • created the John and Hope Furth Professorship of Psychiatric Neuroscience at Yale with a $3 million endowment,
  • created The John L. and Hope L. Furth Endowment for the Smithsonian Libraries in 2005 with an unrestricted fund to enhance educational programs and professional training,my bold 21:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • funded important scientific research which has resulted in numerous recognitions in high quality journals for his contributions including The NY Academy of Sciences wherein it states: S.J. gratefully acknowledges the generosity of Mr. and Mrs. John L. Furth and of Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth S. Hackel, who made this work possible." I consider the funding of scientific research as notable as the research itself.
  • He is a Trustee Emeritus of Barnard College,
  • He is a Trustee and Assistant Treasurer of the Foundation for Child Development,
  • He is a Trustee and former Chairman of Blythedale Children's Hospital,
  • He was awarded The Herbert H. Lehman Award by the American Jewish Committee,
  • He has a highly notable business profile, otherwise he wouldn't be making such notable contributions to science and education.
  • Adding more notability as stub is developed during this AfD 21:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC) He was board chairman for E.M. Warburg Pincus & Co. (1970—1999), and held various other leadership positions for affiliates.
I simply don't understand how his notability even comes into question. Everything the man has accomplished is verifiable in high quality sources such as the Smithsonian and Yale University as well as other academic sources. This really is a time sink. Atsme 📞 📧 19:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Because Wikipedia uses a LITERAL definition of notability - I.E. have others outside his circle of influence taken note of him? — Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
( edit conflict) I could give money to six of my friends, they could do awesome things with it, but I would not be the notable one. There needs to be coverage about the person to meet GNG. As I said earlier, being generous does not necessarily make a person notable (by Wikipedia's standards). Primefac ( talk) 19:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • comment - to consider a professorship named in one's honor not notable or that verifiability of one's accomplishments in a Smithsonian article or Yale article is unreliable tells me we have a serious problem that needs a great deal more attention than this AfD will allow. Yet we consider the academic notable for far less? It doesn't make sense. Being a successful leader in business IS notable according to both GNG and BLP, and Furth meets the requirements. I've provided RS that pass the acid test for verifiability. It doesn't have to be the New York Times, however, there is an article in the New York Post. Self-published sources are also acceptable, particularly for philanthropists and other low-profile notables. So in one breath we're saying you need to cite academic sources, and in another breath we're saying academic sources aren't reliable. Now that's a head-scratcher. ??? Atsme 📞 📧 21:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
I honestly can't find these RS you're talking about. Primefac ( talk) 15:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Look at the article - the stub I'm trying to expand. The RS are there. Also check this out Wikipedia:Do_not_confuse_stub_status_with_non-notability. Atsme 📞 📧 00:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
update the article is now start class with almost every sentence sourced to a RS ranging from the New York Post, Smithsonian Libraries, Yale School of Medicine, Irving Daily News (citing & expanding on NYTimes review), company bios, etc. and it is still a work in progress. Atsme 📞 📧 01:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Inflation. 😆 Readers will learn more about the man's notability by reading the article. For example, he is on the Development Board for Yale University and also serves on the Yale Tomorrow Executive Committee for their Capital Fund Campaign, so the article is not just about the $3 million professorship which actually resulted in a 2nd article about a female doctor/scientist/researcher who became the inaugural Furth professor. I can't understand why the delete voters are having issues recognizing Furth's notability but it may be because they're judging a stub instead of giving the article a chance to breathe. The man has achieved great things and his bio belongs in WP, especially considering what all he has done/is doing for education and research. Atsme 📞 📧 01:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Snow Keep: But needs additional sourcing -- sheesh, AfD less than 24 hours after creation? Absurd and POINT-y. Clearly notable as a philanthrophist. Instead of sucking all the oxygen from the room with an AfD debate, let's give the editors a few weeks to expand the article. Classic case of WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. Montanabw (talk) 06:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
    Comment - Less than 24 hours after creation is a perfectly good time to AFD an article. If a subject isn't notable, why leave them in mainspace any longer? This is not a !vote either way, but immediately after creation is a perfectly good time for AFD and is not pointy. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
    Immediately after creation is a lousy time as the article is still basically a draft. Not everyone sandboxes articles before creating them, particularly when there is a time crunch. Obviously if there is a CSD that fits, that's different, but if it's not a CSD case, than what harm exists in slapping on a notability tag and giving an editor a week or so to fix it? Seriously, it isn't going to "brake teh wiki." Montanabw (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Montanabw, this was a draft (declined twice) before it was an article. Voters have as much priority to read the nomination BEFORE !voting as the person making the nomination, as I stated this fact. Primefac ( talk) 13:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
I did, Primefac, don't be a jerk and accuse other people of things that are not true. We have multiple neutral, third-party sources here, and though the article still needs work, it meets WP:GNG. Montanabw (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • comment Montanabw, the draft deserved to be declined.But this is a new BLP that I created from scratch. 21:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC) In fact, I was discussing another topic on the TP of Robert McClenon and saw the post by a relative of Furth. The submission was poorly written which is understandable in some newbie cases but it aroused my curiosity to see who Furth was and if anything could be done that would prove helpful. See my post above with the link to that discussion. Primefac, it would be much appreciated if you would refrain from comparing the new BLP I created to a declined draft submitted by a newbie. It is a totally different submission. Atsme 📞 📧 17:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The article is full of primary sources, many of which are site bios or statements that he's now at this or that company, none of which establish notability. I looked but couldn't find secondary sources discussing the subject in-depth. Therefore, the subject doesn't meet WP:GNG and the article should be deleted. Ca2james ( talk) 02:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • comment - to what primary sources are you referring as the article being "full of"?
  1. The university of which he is a trustee (primary)
  2. The institution to which he gave money (not independent)
  3. A review of his book, though book reviews don't often impart much onto the author. Correct me if I'm wrong, of course.
  4. A review for his book (a blog/unreliable)
  5. See #2
  6. See #2
  7. The company he works for (primary/not independent)
  8. A generic Bloomberg listing (not usable for notability)
  9. A reasonable source
  10. See #3
  11. An SEC listing, which I'm pretty sure is primary, and even if not it only verifies facts (i.e. brief mention)
  12. This is from a reliable source, but it's just a generic "he's going from X to Y company" and doesn't actually talk about him in any great detail. Good for verification, not so good for notability.
  13. See #1
  14. Duplicate of #9
  15. Name drop/brief mention, again good for verification but not for notability. Also, pretty sure it's a primary source.
Did I miss anything? Primefac ( talk) 19:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Yes, you missed the definition of WP:Primary not to mention sources that ARE ALLOWED IN A BLP for low-key notables. Yale is an article published in an ACADEMIC SOURCE and in combination with Smithsonian both are high quality sources. Both have published articles not primary documents as would be an actual lawsuit filed in the court. Perhaps they are not independent, but there acceptable for low-key notables as are self-published sources. Atsme 📞 📧 19:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC) reply
You also missed that he's an author in addition to being notable for his work and contributions to major, highly notable institutions like Yale and Smithsonian, not to mention the hospitals. This BLP is clearly a SNOW KEEP or I would not have invested the work in it. I have far better things to do with my time, as I'm sure you do as well. 20:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Primary sources can be RS but cannot be used to establish notability. Notability requires multiple significant mentions in independent RS, and that is what is lacking here. Ca2james ( talk) 21:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC) reply
I disagree, Ca2james, there are multiple sources that are independent of the subject: I went through and tightened up the article and reviewed the source material. There are multiple sources independent of the subject, notably what currently are footnotes 4, 6, 7, 9 and 12. The others have some direct connection to the individual but as such are fine because they verify the data that they source. This is more than adequate to meet GNG. Montanabw (talk) 23:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The current version definitely reads better. The sources have to not just be independent of the subject but also give significant mentions. Footnotes 4 and 9 are not significant mentions of him as this person moving to that company isn't a significant mention. 12 is from a blog; even if it wasn't a blog, it's about the book, not the author, who is mentioned only in passing - which is the same problem that 7 and 9 have (from what I can tell as I don't have a newspapers.com account). 7, 9, and 12 indicate that the book is notable but that does not automatically mean that its author is also notable because notability is not WP:INHERITED. Ca2james ( talk) 23:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The blog about the book cites the NYTimes review. It's a 3rd party source citing a 2nd party source. This really is a time sink and needs to be closed. Atsme 📞 📧 02:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply
You are welcome to stop commenting on this discussion, Atsme (though BLUDGEON comes to mind). As a point of note, I'm pretty sure SNOW closes are for when there is no opposition, and simply saying it should be a snow close does not mean it is a snow close. I'll look through the new sources (probably tomorrow) and re-evaluate my opinion on the matter (who knows, you might actually convince me per WP:HEY). Primefac ( talk) 03:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply
You are incorrect. WP:Snow Close - The snowball clause is designed to prevent editors from getting tangled up in long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic discussions over things that are foregone conclusions from the start. It describes this AfD from inception. Atsme 📞 📧 03:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply
But this is not a foregone conclusion; there's arguments on each side. SNOW is thus inappropriate here. — Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 18:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply
His notability has been established in independent sources. The rest is nothing more than an argument about the articles published by the Yale School of Medicine which actually verify the information published in the Smithsonian which verify the Yale articles PLUS there are the following independent sources:
Also see my following comment. Atsme 📞 📧 20:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • comment - (and hopefully the last) regarding secondary sources used in this BLP which are being referred to as primary or not independent, therefore claimed to be unacceptable for the man's notability. See Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources (my bold underline for emphasis): Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research. Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences. A book review too can be an opinion, summary or scholarly review. Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source. So again, our PAGs indicate this AfD to be a candidate for a Snow Close. Atsme 📞 📧 17:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply
I'll harken back to my earlier comment with regard to giving my six best friends a ton of money: they will of course tell good things about me to their friends.
It is obvious that Yale and the Smithsonian will include biographies about Furth; he gave them money. This is the crux of everyone's non-independent argument. WP:42 even has "independent" in bold highlights. So yes, we are making the claim that these sources do not demonstrate his notability, specifically because they are not independent of the subject. Primefac ( talk) 02:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete instead as I'm still not seeing any actual confident signs of his own notability; had he obtained something noticeably notable and convincing, I would've said otherwise but I'm not seeing it. SwisterTwister talk 00:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
*The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.
*The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field
Furth meets either or both those qualifications as (1) an author, (2) someone whose contributions are widely recognized such as The John L. and Hope L. Furth Endowment, Smithsonian Libraries, and The John and Hope Furth Professorship of Psychiatric Neuroscience, Yale School of Medicine, and (3) recipient of the Herbert H. Lehman Award, not to mention his notability as a business leader as described in the article. Atsme 📞 📧 16:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Being an author of books published 40 years ago and not mentioned since then is not "[making] a widely recognized contributiuon that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". If he *was* notable as an author, then WP:AUTHOR would apply, but none of the sources listed above indicate that he meets any of the four notability criteria. Even if endowments qualified as part of an enduring historical record (which, at $3M, they don't), there are no independent sources discussing those endowments as has been shown above. It isn't enough that he's given money to people or whatever; independent sources need to be making significant mentions of him giving money to people or whatever. Furth might be noted in the real world but he is not notable on Wikipedia. Ca2james ( talk) 23:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Atsme has been asking me questions on my talk p. bearing on this discussion, so I thought I;d comment directly. I do not think that giving money to charities is notable, unless the amount is very large, or the prominence very great. Endowing a scholarship just takes a few million dollars; the importance of the organization given the money is irrelevant.. Being a member of multiple boards of directors typically means one had money and connections, neither of which implies encyclopedic notability in most cases. They often come as a result of a 1notable career, but its the career which would be Now, there are exceptions. Someone extremely wealthy is usually notable , and there is probably a line beyond which they can be presumed to be notable--a net worth of more than $ several billion might be realistic (5 years ago I might have said $1 billion, but things have changed at that end of the financial spectrum.
Additionally, the writing is promotional and in some aspects questionable: The The Herbert H. Lehman Award is linked, implying it is a notable award. It is not necessarily--there is no actual article on it, the link goes to Herbert A Lehman, and the article on him doesn't even mention the existence of the award in his honor. A statement he made when he was given an award is quoted in support of his cause, as is astatment of hisaboutthe importance of the smithsonian Library. Neither of these is remotely encyclopedic content. DGG ( talk ) 09:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply
DGG I started that TP discussion with you for one purpose only - to help me understand some issues I found puzzling. It was certainly not intended to bring you to this AfD which is why I did not mention a specific subject and attempted to keep my questions general. You basically assumed that this was the article in question, and while some of my questions may be related it actually had as much to do with several Notability RfCs as it has to do with this article. While I agree with you on some aspects of it, I disagree in others, specifically about the amount of money necessary to make someone "notable". I firmly believe - and with good reason - that the purpose of one's philanthropy is far more important and notable than the amount of it, especially with regards to determining one's notability. The worthiness and purpose of an endowment is far more important than the amount of money that created it, and the former is what editors should glean from the content of cited sources along with the number of cited sources, not the WORTH of the philanthropy, endowment or the subject's financial worth. To put a dollar amount on notable contributions is absurb, and diminishes the worth of the professorship and other endowments that serve humanity. Atsme 📞 📧 17:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Still none of this suggests the needed confident substance for his own notability, examining this myself found nothing actually convincing, there's no inherited notability from those other groups and financial activities. SwisterTwister talk 18:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply
I think you already !voted above ST? Alexbrn ( talk) 18:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply

comment - a Furth professorship awarded by Yale School of Medicine is academic in nature and also notable. I fail to see how the notable act of humanity that established the Furth professorship is promotional, but then I've had similar discussions with the same 3 editors who have tried to get my work deleted in the past for similar reasons. At least there's consistency in their showing up where I'm involved. Perhaps it's a show of Wikilove...at least that's what I'd like to think. Atsme 📞 📧 20:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply

The Professorship and its holders will be notable. Just providing the money for the position is not, any more than the development officer who (presumably) coordinated the gift or the attorney who prepared the documents.
It is true I have commented adversely on a number of this editor's articles. My current activity at WP is primarily removing promotional articles, and it is therefore inevitable that I will argue for the deletion of the articles of those who write them. DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Well thank you for your admission, DGG but based on your perspective of "promotional" your argument rests on an editor's determination of a financial amount rather than the notability of the deed which is determined by cited sources. Editors should not be burdened with assessing notability based on monetary values attached to endowments that earn honorary titles because there are instances when notable people and institutions don't want those amounts disclosed. You stated above that "I do not think that giving money to charities is notable, unless the amount is very large,". I find that very concerning because it conflicts with our PAGs. Editors should not judge notability on monetary worth - it should be determined by the weight given to it in the cited RS. Atsme 📞 📧 01:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
You keep talking about the weight given to the cited RS, but (as mentioned ad nauseam) most of those sources you give are not independent; if I gave the Smithsonian $3m tomorrow, they would probably put up a bio about me as well; it does not make me a notable individual. Now if Forbes or the NYT wrote a piece about Furth and said "look at all this money he's giving to people" we'd be having a completely different discussion. Primefac ( talk) 02:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
I note I was unable to find any information about his actual wealth,and the one relevant comment I could find is that one of his gifts was listed as over $1 million, but not a leadership gift where their criterion for Leadership gifts seems to be $20 million. I was hoping to find something that would justify notability . a person can be notable because of standing in the highest rank of whatever it is they are important for, and one of those possibilities is wealth. In philanthropy, which tends to be correlated, it is the amount given in terms of the standards of the time. But this is how I judge notability in this respect, not how I judge promotionalism . Emphasizing minor matters of any sort is part of the basis for concluding its promotional editing. DGG ( talk ) 02:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
DGG, there was one over $3 million, another that was unrestricted, and there are a substantial amount of others he contributes to on a regular basis. I thank you for your efforts but philanthropy regarding this BLP should not be judged only on "recentism" as Furth has been involved in philanthropy for over 40 years. It would be wrong to discount the many years he has been actively involved contributing large sums of money and donating substantial amounts of his time to further humanity, research & education. Long standing philanthropy should not be determined by the monetary values we see today as you suggested because the monetary worth of a gift given in the 1950s-1960s would not have the same value or significance as that same amount would have today. In 1970, $1 million would be worth over $6 million today. His philanthropic notability should be measured over time which is verifiable in RS, and further verified by reports in primary sources which are acceptable for such use. I have not totaled his monetary contributions over the past 40 years because I considered his notability was on the line of "the sky is blue" so when I created the stub, I cited his most recent activity, not his life's contributions as a philanthropist. Low key notability also applies in this case because of the nature of philanthropy. As I already mentioned, his notability is long term, and should not be measured on the monetary value of a single gift but on the gifts he has given long term and the substance of his humanitarian deeds as verified in RS. I don't see Furth's philanthropy as "promotion" rather I see his notability as a lifetime of low-key gifts to further humanity which is verifiable in the RS I cited; therefore, the very nature of his philanthropy is contrary to your claim of "promotional". Also, considering this AfD was initiated within a day or two of publishing, it is highly discouraging for any editor to want to work to expand it because these AfDs are time sinks and completely dependent on the closing admin. I can only hope and maintain faith that in this case, the closing admin will carefully consider the weight of the arguments and not make a determination based on the number of !votes. Keeping this BLP and allowing me an opportunity to expand it will not break the Wiki. Atsme 📞 📧 04:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
In 2009, he was one of a handful of $1 million to $4,999,999.00 donors to Blythedale Childrens Hospital Journey of Hope Society as verified on page 8 here which documents just one of his many philanthropic donations to humanity, particularly children. 04:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Katie talk 11:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Vietnam women's national under-17 football team

Vietnam women's national under-17 football team (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced and no evidence of notability for this youth team. Qed237  (talk) 20:21, 19 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 08:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 ( T) 15:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete instead as there's still nothing substantially convincing as its own article and the minimal information listed would be best listed elsewhere, especially the fact it's both unsourced and underpopulated. SwisterTwister talk 00:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:V we cannot have an article on a topic unless it has some coverage in third-party reliable sources. This article doesn't cite any, nobody here has cited any, and I could see any readily available. This applies regardless of whether the subject meets any notability guidelines. Hut 8.5 21:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This may be a case of WP:NEWBIE ? Has any looked at User talk:Usainnguyen. Perhaps we need to get someone who is fluent in English and Vietnamese to have a conversation with them ? Seems to be good faith stuff going on here but an almost complete lack of understanding ? Aoziwe ( talk) 14:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep U-17 teams are notable. Also there is some sources that this team does exist. For example here is the last match of qualifying for the team in the 2015 edition of AFC U-16 Championship. [14]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Possible merge can be discussed on the talk page, but it seems there is consensus to keep in this discussion. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 02:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Muesli belt malnutrition

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

one-off neologism Kintetsubuffalo ( talk) 15:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 15:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep/merge There are no new words here and the topic seems valid. It might be incorporated into some more general article such as high residue diet but that's ordinary editing, not deletion. Andrew D. ( talk) 11:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, can be referenced, a handful citations have been added, meets WP:GNG, and is not a "one-off" term judging from four decades of sources. Coined sometimes before 1988, it hardly a neologism either. Sam Sailor Talk! 18:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as there's seems to be enough convincing for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 00:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge, probably to fad diet. That there are "no new words" obviously doesn't mean it's not a neologism, but regardless there seem to be enough sources to merit including somewhere. The problem as far as it having its own article is that the sources I see using it do so as a catchall for "people trying to 'eat healthy' but not actually eating all that healthy". In other words, it's a neologism for a concept that, in use, isn't all that clearly defined as distinct from various other terms. It seems mainly focused on falling into health fads (no carbs, no fats, etc.), which is why I say fad diet. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:38, 13 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. Merging and other editorial concerns can be discussed on the talk page, but I believe that there is consensus to keep given the new sources presented here. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 02:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Traditionalist Youth Network

Traditionalist Youth Network (  | 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 only see coverage from advocacy groups (ADL and SPLC) and advocacy press (antifascistnews.net) which seem insufficient for controversial claims. Notability, given the absence of mainstream coverage, is also an issue. James J. Lambden ( talk) 01:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply

EDIT, Amended: Redirect Traditionalist Youth Network and White Student Union (Towson University) to Matthew Heimbach. James J. Lambden ( talk) 20:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete SPLC is not sufficiently reliable to warrant an article. Not everything they ever mention deserves an article. It's 4 SPLC articles (POV rants), a primary source, and one ADL source. Not good enough to meet WP:GNG. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{ re}} | talk | contribs) 11:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
See links below to Al-Jazeera America and AP/Business Insider. Carrite ( talk) 16:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The AP article contains one sentence of significant coverage about the topic, but this one sentence must be discounted because it is sourced to the SPLC.  Likewise, the minimal significant coverage in the Al-Jazerra article is sourced to the primary web site.  There is evidence of direct WP:N notability in a caption that identifies Heimbach as the founder of the topic.  I see nothing in either article to help write a NPOV article.  Unscintillating ( talk) 02:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Thanks, both good articles but Traditionalist Youth Network isn't the primary subject of either - Heimbach is - suggesting an article on Heimbach (with a section on Traditionalist Youth Network) would be more appropriate. Would you say an article on both is warranted and can you list your other sources? James J. Lambden ( talk) 23:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Here are some articles that focus primarily on TYN: They initially planned a "Koran BBQ" but subsequently changed the focus of the event to supporting Bashar Assad, they called for hate crimes charges in a Cincinnati beating, and they posted controversial recruitment posters at Appalachian State University. I definitely think Heimbach has been covered enough in reliable sources to potentially have his own article. By the way, White Student Union (Towson University) was also founded by him. I'm honestly not sure what the best strategy is for covering the ever-expanding list of organizations and topics he's affiliated with; the WSU, the TYN, the TWP, and now the Sacramento riots. Having articles about all of them might be a bit too much. Any thoughts? FiredanceThroughTheNight ( talk) 04:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Good finds. So we have Traditionalist Youth Network, White Student Union (Towson University) and Matthew Heimbach - all potentially notable but I don't think sufficiently notable to warrant multiple articles. Since Heimbach is the common thread my preference would be an article on Heimbach with sections on and redirects from the organizations. I'll amend my vote. James J. Lambden ( talk) 20:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Can the above voters explain whether their votes are based on the existing sources or on potential sources (and if so which ones?) James J. Lambden ( talk) 23:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The ADL and the SPLC's extensive coverage (already cited in the article) is good enough for me. These are full-scale profiles, not passing mentions; both groups are well-known and respected for tracking extremist movements in the U.S. (The nominators' characterization of these groups as "advocacy groups" and another editor's characterization of the SPLC coverage as "POV rants" is silly, to put it mildly.) There is other coverage of this group and its (odious) activities not currently cited that confirms its notability for me; the group's picketing of a leftist bookstore in Indiana received coverage from WFHB (see here) and from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (see here). Neutrality talk 23:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
See my modified vote above. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{ re}} talk | contribs) 05:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 06:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 06:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and possibly redirect to White Student Union (Towson University)  The SPLC is known for its opinionated viewpoints, and its opinions are only reliable as viewpoints of the SPLC.  While such material adds to WP:GNG notability, our articles require sufficient material to satisfy our core policy WP:NPOV.  The current article shows severe policy problems, such as the second of the two sentences in the lede, which reads, "Established in 2013, the group promotes a racist interpretation of Christianity."  2013 is recent enough that there is no urgency on covering the topic in the encyclopedia (WP:TOOSOON, WP:SUSTAINED).  The comment about Christianity is written in Wikipedia's voice, has no citation, and is not explained later in the article.  As an extraordinary claim, WP:V requires that this claim have extraordinary sources, and I seem to recall that WP:BLP can apply in this situation.  This sentence is displayed on Google after a search for ""Traditionalist Youth Network".  Here is another sentence from the current article, "<name redacted> is also a white supremacist."  There is no citation, and interestingly, the sentence is a WP:BLP violation for not one, but two people.  I saw nothing in the article about the size of the membership of the group, just that it has one chapter.  Meanwhile, a report this week from NBC News [15] cites the SPLC as that the group has ten chapters.  I also reviewed the discussion on the talk page, which shows that there is ongoing concern about how this topic is being covered.  Unscintillating ( talk) 02:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I philosophically believe in the lowest of possible notability bars for political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections without regard to size or ideology. This is the sort of information that a comprehensive encyclopedia should contain. This article is a little of all three. In this case, it is a pretty clear GNG pass beyond my own normative statement: see, for example, THIS article from Al-Jazeera America, "The Little Führer: A Day in the Life of the Newest Leader of White Nationalists" (on the group's leader) and THIS piece from the Associated Press, via Business Insider, "White Nationalists, Protesters Clash in California; 10 Hurt" (on the group's political party adjunct). Arguably too new of a group for three separate articles, but one article with redirects is more than worthy of encyclopedic coverage. GNG pass. Carrite ( talk) 16:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 ( T) 15:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • In the French article, the additions to WP:notability for this topic occur in the interview question number 1 and a little bit with question 5.  Question #1 and the primary material in the answer to #1 support your point that WSU is closely associated with TYN.  Unscintillating ( talk) 02:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Regarding using WSU, this might work.  The French article you cite above ends by saying (Google translate), "We look carefully at the political situation in the US and nationalist movements seem interesting."  The attention is going to US nationalist movements, not the biography of Heimbach.  The WSU article is more neutral than the current article.  Unscintillating ( talk) 13:38, 10 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. Euryalus ( talk) 13:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

LatexFashionTV

LatexFashionTV (  | 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 for notability. In my opinion not even an indication of significance, but A7 speedy was removed. DGG ( talk ) 03:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n( talk page) 13:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mar11 ( talk) 16:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mar11 ( talk) 16:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 ( T) 14:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete there does not seem to be much interest in this subject on wikipedia or the media, lack of mainstream coverage means WP:GNG is not passed. Atlantic306 ( talk) 02:10, 9 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. Euryalus ( talk) 13:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

FileCloud

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

Zero evidence of notability, but A7 declined. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n( talk page) 13:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 05:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 05:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 ( T) 14:59, 5 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. Other than a number of WP:SPA keep !votes, there is near unanimous consensus to delete. There is some feeling that a short mention of this in Benzodiazepine, Benzodiazepine dependence, or Benzodiazepine use disorder might be appropriate, but there is certainly no consensus for a full merge. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply

World Benzodiazepine Awareness Day


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

Not seeing sufficient notability Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 14:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 15:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

This is an internationally recognized day. July 11th will be the first W-BAD. How long do we have to fix the issues and what time of prove do you need or want to see in regards to this day's existence? 76.102.40.196 ( talk) 16:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Just because something has been cited still does not make it notable. I have been in multiple newspaper articles and on TV, however I am not notable. In addition please note the only edit MixieLove has ever made is to vote to keep this article. The only edits Da'locin has made is to this article and now this deletion conversation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viewmont Viking ( talk • contribs)
  • Comment Allow me to examine the sources:
  1. - Not a reliable source, this is the website that the day is using as a webhost
  2. - Questionable, I haven't heard of "Morning News USA" before, not sure if this would be considered a WP:RS
  3. - Link is to the bio of the doctor who's idea this is, not a WP:RS
  4. - See above
  5. - This might be a RS, covered in a local paper
  6. - The bill makes no mention of the day, rather it's legislation regarding the prescribing and use of benzos
  7. - Motion in Parliament, however I'm not sure what weight this carries
  8. - See #1
  9. - This is an article about the effect of benzos, not the day so this would not be a valid source
  10. - This is a BBC story from 2001, nothing about this day
  11. - See #9
  12. - This is guidance on how to prescribe benzos, against not about this day
  13. - See #10
  14. - See #10
  15. - See #1

So of the sources in the article, there's one that MAYBE a reliable source, one highly questionable, and a motion in Parliament, which I would need more info regarding if this imparts notability. The remaining are either not about the day or not sources that are valid. RickinBaltimore ( talk) 14:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Keep as a start or stub class article, notability is limited because it is very new - in the coming years I imagine that more reliable sources will emerge. I appreciate that the keep argument is not strong and it is reasonable to nominate the article for deletion discussion - if the outcome of this discussion is to delete then I think it should be a "delete and merge" reliable sourced material into the history section of the benzodiazepine dependence article. This day has enough notability to, at a minimum deserve a couple of sentences in an appropriate article.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k? 16:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Another one that we can cite that just came out yesterday: Oldham Chronicle Da'locin ( talk) 14:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply
I don't want to seem cold Christopher Aikman and am truly sorry to hear about your daughter, but Wikipedia's role is to simply reflect what independent reliable sources say about something, not to right great wrongs. In fact, Wikipedia is probably one of the last places people should be referring to for any kind of medical advice simply because it is by design an encyclopedia which can be edited by anyone anywhere in the world at anytime. The organization behind World Benzodiazepine Awareness Day will not have any final say or editorial control over what goes in the article per WP:OWN. Content which it adds to the article can literally be instantly altered or removed by someone else. So, there is no 100% guarantee of accuracy for anything posted in this article or on Wikipedia in general, and there's no real way to prevent any "misinformation" from being added to this article by either side of the argument at some point in time. For what it's worth, Wikipedia does not even consider itself to be a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly ( talk) 05:53, 11 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  08:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Lohan yoga

Lohan yoga (  | 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 Yoga variation. This was declined several times in Draft, before being copy pasted over, mainly for lack of references. Also Lohan Yoga was speedied as promo but I have no idea how this content differs. The only non-Primary references are about concepts not the subject itself. There does not seem to be a level of coverage to back up any claims of notability. Peter Rehse ( talk) 13:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 14:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Well I don't think you can call it a revival. It appears to be an amalgamation of two different things with a synthetic history. Peter Rehse ( talk) 20:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
True, was basing it on the second paragraph of the lead.-- ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 18:26, 8 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. Euryalus ( talk) 06:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Erik Pochanski

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

Speedy deletion per WP:G4 was declined on the grounds that he has now played in the Champions League. However, since his one appearance was in qualifying against a non-fully-pro-league club, this does not confer notability per WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 13:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 13:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep - I found it fair to keep the article. I see no point to delete it now and then I recreate it after a month, when he made his debut in First league or in Europa League agnist fully pro team. Also, he had matches agnist fully pro teams in the Bulgarian Cup. - Chris Calvin ( talk) 14:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Claims to notability based on potential future appearances have been consistently rejected in the past. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomislav Turčin and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baoringdao Bodo for recent examples.) His cup appearances against FPL-clubs were not for FPL-clubs and so do not qualify under WP:NSPORT either. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 14:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick •  t •  c •  s 08:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick •  t •  c •  s 08:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick •  t •  c •  s 08:50, 7 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. Although I acknowledge that a number of sources were provided as this debate wore on, an invitation for earlier contributors to rethink their views almost four days ago did not yield any changes to the consensus. As such, I am satisfied that the overall view is to delete. KaisaL ( talk) 22:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Jamie Gough (politician)

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

Politician who fails WP:NPOL - only served as a local city councillor. Doesn't appear to meet GNG, some local coverage but thats it Gbawden ( talk) 13:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 15:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 15:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 15:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep It's not mentioned in this article, but Gough has often been in the news for his drinking and poor behaviour. Suggest keep and expand with more information. Notable for being badly behaved while on council business?! MurielMary ( talk) 11:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Oh OK sorry I had no idea - the situation is covered in news stories such as this: The Press and this second article from The Press so I figured that it would be ok to include in an article. MurielMary ( talk) 11:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Including is not a problem in itself. But we usually go by WP:WEIGHT. Unless the crime has been covered repeatedly/has some lasting significance, it shouldn't be the only thing the article subject is known for. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 13:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Coverage of the drinking problem [17]. is. in fact, "covered repeatedly/has some lasting significance" and covered in-depth, mention of it needs to be added to article. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - fails notability NealeFamily ( talk) 23:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non-notable local councilor. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete notable only for reasons that otherwise violate WP:BLP. Also references such as Linked-In are not reliable sources Ajf773 ( talk) 08:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Although Christchurch is a large enough city that its city councillors might be includable if they could be shown to satisfy WP:GNG, it's not in the rarefied level of cities that can give their city councillors an automatic WP:NPOL pass just for existing. There's simply not enough genuinely substantive content here to trump the WP:BLPPRIVACY issues posed by the public drunkenness claims — outside of that, there's nothing here that goes beyond the kind of "meet your councillor" PR profile that he could send out on his own campaign literature (which is not the kind of article that any politician at any level of office gets to keep on here.) Bearcat ( talk) 18:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • - - If keep, there is a request to move this page to Jamie Gough, if there are no other notable Jamie Goughs. But see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Gough. There is also Jamie Gough (footballer), which I found deleted at Jamie Gough and I undeleted it and moved it to Jamie Gough (footballer) and re-deleted it. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 04:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Scion of a wealthy family, for which reason some of the coverage is far from routine coverage of a minor politician [18]. Nor will a simple "fails WP:POL do in this case since there is media coverage of his role in the family-owned corporation. The family corporation thing gets complicated, but since the political career and family wealth are interreleted, the article needs to be expanded with material like this: [19], here: [20] and here: [21] (note: that url looks sketchy, but is actually a joint operation of three major NZ newspapers, including The Press, The Dominion Post and the The Sunday Star-Times. (Note this wealthy family business/dynasty needs an article of its own.) Search on New Zealand's only "other" major newspaper (N.Z. looks big on a map, but pop. is tiny) here: [22] but note that he is not the dude that caught the baseball, and coverage of him is routing and limited in The herals, the Auckland paper. It is in the South that Gough clan is a big deal. But it is a big deal, which is why coverage in the 3 southern papers is extensive and often in depth, search results here: [23]. There is more in The Press, coverage of everything from his social life, to his insulting the lower classes, and mostly, of his work as a city councillor - over 400 articles, I only skimed the first 2 or 3 pages. More coverage in The Southland Times, the Manawatu Standard, and other media, more than enough to make it a keeper. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Weak Delete: I'm on the fence here, but what pushes me towards delete is that I can't find any biography pieces about him, instead all of the news coverage is "Gough did/says this/that", this from the NBR was the closest I could find to a profile of him and it's not just about him [24]. I am surprised that Gough Group doesn't have an article as a fairly large company, so perhaps some of this information can be moved into that, or into a Gough family article. Mattlore ( talk) 23:27, 12 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. We have good argument from both sides. The keep votes emphasize that all the publicity of the company was generated during a short period; the delete votes point out that there is a sufficient amount of reliable sources which mention the organization and thus it passes WP:GNG. The delete votes numerically prevail as 2:1, but since the overall number of votes is not so great, and the keep votes are more policy based ( WP:ONEEVENT does not indeed apply), I close this as no consensus.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 10:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Immigration Watch Canada

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

First two GHits are the group page and the WP article. Looks like WP:1EVENT/ WP:NOTNEWS. WP:ORGDEPTH is not met, as all of the organization's coverage is limited to the flyering event, and I might go so far as to say that this is an article on an event that doesn't meet WP:EVENT masquerading as an ORG article and trying to use WP:ROUTINE to establish passing WP:GNG. MSJapan ( talk) 23:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete They were briefly in the news in 2014 for some controversial fliers they put out. I could not find any mention of the group in Reliable Sources before or since 2014. I think they were basically a flash in the pan. The group seems to still exist, but it does not seem that they ever had lasting notability. -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 01:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 01:40, 27 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 08:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:GNG appear to be met. Excepting WP:1EVENT, which doesn't apply here, there doesn't seem to be good consensus on deletion based on WP:EVENT arguments. In the absence of consensus, we keep. ~ Kvng ( talk) 14:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Nom amended - WP:NOTNEWS is probably the closest I can get to "an organization only notable for doing one thing a few years ago," so I have added that, and ORGDEPTH is definitely not met by coverage of one event. Several news outlets covering the same event is not significant coverage; it's WP:COATRACKING and whatever the shortlink is to the guideline that says 100 news sources saying the same thing is not evidence of depth of coverage. MSJapan ( talk) 17:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. It's always a bad sign when the first two google hits are the organizations's own website, and our article. The next hit is to the Huffington Post, Canada edition, which has three short articles on them. All published within a seven month span in 2014. Normally, I'd consider HuffPo a WP:RS, but, 1) they only covered it in the Canada edition, 2) the articles are short, 3) they're really about specific events, i.e. the flyers, not the organization itself, and 4) they all are within a short time span.. So, I don't think this is enough to meet WP:GNG. Also, HuffPo Canada is the only WP:RS I'm seeing. Nobody else seems to be picking up on it. Continuing to work down the first page of google hits, I see social media like twitter and facebook, and some political blogs. Not the kind of coverage we're looking for. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Although the policies cited in the nomination have been amended, I still cannot close this based on a clear consensus, and will therefore give the community another seven days to attempt to form one. KaisaL ( talk) 13:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL ( talk) 13:18, 5 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) ansh 666 02:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

OmniGuide

OmniGuide (  | 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 company, doesn't appear to meet WP:CORP. This is a private company, which means info is sparse anyway, but drilling down on the Highbeam search results claimed to meet notability shows that they are press releases, either required by law (changes in high-level personnel), financing notices, or ads. Adjusting for the first two [26] dropped 31 results of the original 179, and starts showing duplication in strange areas in the rest of the results, like a result in Entertainment Close-up, and the same item in Wireless News, which are clearly not RS for a medical device company, and on close review, are press release ads. Most of the results are in "weekly"-type websites that don't seem to be discerning in content. I'm not aware that usage of tools in primary studies meets notability for the manufacturer, as that seems WP:INHERITED . The company also spun out of MIT, which means the MIT source used is questionable as independent. Posting the AfD notice to the creator yielded several CSDs of this article in 2008 and a block of the user for creating the article. Delete and salt if speediable. MSJapan ( talk) 20:28, 19 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 08:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will relist this again in the hope of additional input, there is clearly no consensus to delete right now but input has been minimal as a whole. KaisaL ( talk) 13:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL ( talk) 13:17, 5 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) ansh 666 02:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Jock Haswell

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

Doesn't appear to satisfy WP:SOLDIER or WP:AUTHOR. Clarityfiend ( talk) 01:03, 20 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 08:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Although many of these debates have been going to a split no consensus, I am happy to give this enough seven days in the hope of additional input. KaisaL ( talk) 13:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL ( talk) 13:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete His books are held in up to 400 libraries in WorldCat, but I was able to find only one review, and that in Kirkus, which reviews just about everything coming out of mainstream publishers. And that review was not positive: "Haswell's biography nonetheless fails to grasp the political climate of the day, depicting James as a victim." His scholarship seems to be non-notable (few citations in scholarly works per G-scholar). Without reviews and cites, it is hard to argue for notability. I have no opinion as to his military bone fides since I'm not up on those policies, but as author he isn't notable. LaMona ( talk) 16:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I admit that looking him up is tricky, because he doesn't have a stable first name, because he seems to have sometimes published under a pseudonym, and because he was publishing pre-internet. Nevertheless, it was easy to find reviews in general circulartion American newspapers (I added a couple to the article") and to validate him by typing a cou;le of unique book titles from the page into a search on books google My search on ""the first respectable spy : the life and times of Colquhoun Grant" here: [30]; my search on ""The Intelligence and Deception of the D-Day Landings"," here: [31]. That's certainly enough to validate notability. Article needs expansion, User:LaMona, User:Johnpacklambert, User:Clarityfiend, would you revisit? Perhaps run a different kind of search, in light of the name problem, and the fact that his career took place in prehistoric times? E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
I see his books listed here, but I don't see reviews. Also, finding the book's title in other books is kind of like doing a google search on a term - you get hits, but it isn't clear, unless you can look at the resulting documents, whether the documents represent significant treatment. I am wary of using Google book searches as conclusions when one does not have access to the books themselves. It's a finding aid, not the end of research. So, no, I don't think this is enough to validate notability. LaMona ( talk) 17:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
To be clear, the hits on the first page of my 2 books searches (every search is different) led to multiple fully legible pages where information from the two books I searched was being discussed in the text of the book I located. And I did add book reviews to the page. This one truly looks like a slam dunk to me. Odd, because my findings usually jibe with LaMona's. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 19:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Double-checking myself because LaMona is very reliable. Haswell is clearly a popularizer, not an academic historian, but major publishers don't go on publishing an author, and American publishers don't reprint British titles, unless the man's books are selling. How popular? Hard to say. There are sources like this: [32]. But, mostly, there are the mentions of his work in other books and the old book reviews. Add another book review, this one form the Los Angeles Times. He really does seem to have been a reasonably well-known author in his day. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 19:57, 6 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) ansh 666 02:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Jock Brandis

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

Doesn't satisfy WP:BIO as far as I can see. Film crews are almost always unnotable. See also the above Afd for The Ship's Cat, a book he wrote. Clarityfiend ( talk) 01:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: He's non-notable for his film work and I've edited the page to remove the mentions of his technical work. From my experience this stuff is rarely added because technical work (gaffer, lighting, cinematography, special effects) tends to not be considered of overwhelming note on Wikipedia unless their work is specifically highlighted on Wikipedia. I think that this probably stems from the fact that workers of this type tend to do 3-4 times the work that your average actor and director would complete, meaning that their work is more common and less visible than an actor or director, not to mention that their roles aren't as "big" as someone in an acting or directing position. Their work is the backbone of the film, to be sure, but it doesn't have the same level of visibility and immediate notability since you can have many people working on lighting and special effects, as well as many gaffers. Cinematography is a bit different since there's typically only one of them, but it's difficult to establish notability for them since they're not frequently listed in film coverage and as such their role can frequently be seen as "minor". (This is not my opinion, just how it's often perceived.) However since Brandis only worked as a cinematographer on Diary of a Sinner, a film without its own article, this is a bit moot. He might be notable for the sheller and the organization, although both pages do seem to have issues with sourcing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I was honestly not expecting to find much for Brandis, given that his book was solidly non-notable and his article was borderline promotional, but it looks like Brandis received quite a bit of coverage for his peanut sheller, charitable organization, and for his special effects work with Death Bed, as his creation of the titular bed has received some coverage. It's in relation to the film, but it's in-depth enough to where it can give some notability as he's specifically and repeatedly mentioned by name. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:14, 27 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 08:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's an insufficient level of consensus to make any sort of call on this yet. More input is needed. KaisaL ( talk) 13:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL ( talk) 13:15, 5 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. In a discussion with block evasion, I'm not counting IP opinions.  Sandstein  08:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Psychotronics (therapy)

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

Nonnotable pseudoscientific snake oil mumbo-jumbo from 1970s Staszek Lem ( talk) 16:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even with the struck out comments I am not convinced yet that there has been enough input to clearly close this with a consensus to delete. KaisaL ( talk) 13:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL ( talk) 13:12, 5 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. Euryalus ( talk) 13:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Ádám Borics

Ádám Borics (  | 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 MMA fighter does not meet WP:NMMA or WP:GNG. The primary editor seems to represent a MMA company which gave him an award of some sort. Peter Rehse ( talk) 12:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 12:33, 5 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. Nakon 00:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Muzahid Khan

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

Delete or Redirect to Rang-E-Ishq: Non-notable actor possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON. I failed to find any independent reliable source to support WP:NACTOR and the article been deleted twice already per A7 (see deletion log Muzahid khan and Muzahid Khan. As usual i dont understand why Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant decline csd and waste everyone's time on AfD. Thank You – GSS ( talk) 11:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 11:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 11:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination. I was going to agree with the suggested redirect, but Rang-E-Ishq was one of the billion non-notable films that pour out of Bollywood every month, so I've prodded that as well. I can find no significant coverage of him (or the film) online in WP:RS.
  • Delete as I should note the tag remover is now kicked from the website so, as my analysis and examinations are still not finding anything convincingly better, there's nothing to suggest the needed improvements. SwisterTwister talk 00:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as non-notable actor. — Music1201 talk 21:33, 13 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 per WP:CSD#A7 - anyone can start a record label and claim it is significant without selling any records Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Ya'llKnow Wolf

Ya'llKnow Wolf (  | 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 that I could find of meeting the notability guidelines for music ( WP:MUSICBIO). Google for "Ya'llKnow Wolf" returns next to nothing. Autobiographical article —   crh 23  ( Talk) 10:57, 5 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. Euryalus ( talk) 12:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Grant G. Mitman

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

Self-created article, no evidence of meeting WP:NACADEMICS Melcous ( talk) 10:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 15:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 15:47, 5 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. Euryalus ( talk) 13:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

North Road (Plymouth)

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

I'm having trouble finding any sources to show the notability of this road over and above the railway station which has its own article. — Rod talk 07:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 15:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 15:38, 6 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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Trivandrum V Balaji

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

Not notable, searches come up with very little. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:45, 28 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 04:12, 5 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. sufficient consensus after relisting DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Mithal Jiskani

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

Delete. Subject fails WP:AUTHOR and neither does he pass WP:PROF. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 16:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 16:42, 28 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 03:34, 5 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. Clear Consensus DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Karam ud Din

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

Delete. Fails WP:SOLDIER. Recipient of the 7th highest honor ( Tamgha-i-Khidmat). As per WP:SOLDIER, only one time recipient of highest award or multiple time recipient of second-highest award are notable (in terms of awards). He has not held any high rank, nor played an important role in a significant military event or commanded a substantial body of troops in combat. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 16:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 16:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 16:42, 28 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 03:33, 5 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. Katie talk 11:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Shopping in Leeds

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

Whole article is written like a retail guide. Highly unsourced and no notable content (anything content that may be slightly notable is better suited for merging to the Leeds article) Ajf773 ( talk) 08:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 16:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 16:44, 28 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 03:32, 5 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. Katie talk 11:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Shopping in Manchester

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

Written as a retail guide WP:NOTGUIDE. Mostly cited by primary sources and thus fails WP:GNG. Some appropriate sourced content more suited to be merged into other articles Ajf773 ( talk) 09:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an all-purpose shopping registry. I am still amazed how all these "Shopping in XYZ" articles made it through the notability check. -- Arbraxan ( talk) 10:56, 28 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 03:32, 5 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 as a week has shown both convincing consensus and also the fact that applicable high schools are in fact notable thus Keep (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 00:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

M.M.M Urdu High School

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

Bad spelling and grammar, no proof of notability, and appears to have been created by a recent graduate of the school.  ONR   (talk)  03:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 15:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 15:50, 5 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. Euryalus ( talk) 13:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Gabriela Dias (actress)

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

Advertorially-slanted WP:BLP of an "actress, model, television host, producer, businesswoman and humanitarian", with no strong or properly sourced indication of notability for any of those endeavours. The whole thing is written like a LinkedIn profile, and the sourcing is almost entirely of the primary variety with negligible reliable source coverage about her in media. None of her career activities are fields that confer an automatic inclusion freebie on a person just because she exists -- they all have specific markers of achievement that have to be attained, and specific volumes of reliable sourcing that have to be shown. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 05:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 16:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 16:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 16:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per discussion below. Question: How much research into additional sourcing has anyone else done here? I can't say I am impressed, and I am concerned about sourcing, but there appears to be enough accomplishments in combination to (barely) meet GNG, but the above google search is pretty restrictive, I've gotten more with this search, including a swimwear line that adds another factor to her GNG assessment. Montanabw (talk) 20:32, 1 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 03:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

*Delete I agree with again with Bearcat, this article does not pass WP:GNG Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 06:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)Banned sock. HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 06:38, 11 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. Euryalus ( talk) 06:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Madeline Matar

Madeline Matar (  | 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 2006 article lacks sources that establish notability. I attempted WP:BEFORE and came up short. There is some information on the Arabic Wikipedia, but no sources there either. Scottyoak2 ( talk) 02:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 16:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 16:49, 28 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 03:26, 5 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. Mojo Hand ( talk) 14:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Francisco Ramírez (politician)

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

Self-created article, does not appear to meet WP:NPOL as local councillor Melcous ( talk) 01:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 12:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 12:11, 28 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 03:25, 5 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. Not my field, but consensus seems clear enough DGG ( talk ) 08:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply

The Salvador Darlings

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:BAND PGWG ( talk) 14:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:31, 1 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 03:20, 5 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. Hut 8.5 21:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Grace Boylan

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

Cannot find any Reliable Sources about subject, does not appear to meet WP:GNG PGWG ( talk) 16:54, 27 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 02:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

*Delete This article does not pass WP:GNG Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 06:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC) Banned sock HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 06:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Yes, I had the same thought. Innisfree987 ( talk) 21:08, 6 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. We cannot judge spiritual importance,only documentable evidence that the person is an important religious leader. This is not adequate here. Such problems may prevent adequate coverage of this field, but we are limited by WP:V, which is one of he basic principles. DGG ( talk ) 08:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Muhammad Siddique Dar

Muhammad Siddique Dar (  | 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 indications of significance, even less notability. The article subject is supposedly a successor in a practically unknown religious group in Punjab, Pakistan. The person has no independent presence on the English internet - the article is entirely self-sourced, and just like other articles created by the same editor ( Abdul Hakim Ansari, Tauheediyah, Muhammad Hanif Khan), seems to simply promote or legitimise the said religious group. I suggest deletion per WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NBIO (including WP:ANYBIO). — kashmiri  TALK 19:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I'm going to have to second the comparison here to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tauheediyah and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Hakim Ansari. Promotional articles on obscure South Asian religious figures is extremely common on the encyclopedia, and almost every instance shares a few constants such as poor writing, re-citing the same source over and over to inflate the references, and asserting little notability about the subjects other than that they were good people. Like the others, this article fails the WP:GNG on the most basic level. The fact that the subject's supposed notoriety revolves around the above mentioned deleted articles also severely damages any possible claims of notability. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 06:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Page is in accordance to WP:V of its sources, It is not problematic as satisfying WP:NOR recommendations. Additionally there are nothing to be considered as objectionable in view of WP:C. Write up is also satisfactory to WP:NPOV. Page under review has no issues related to WP:AB, WP:SELFPROMOTE. There is no violations of WP:SELFCITE provisions. Contribution is covered under WP:CURATOR and is part of WP:COIU. Person satisfies WP:GNG and is in accordance to WP:SIGCOV in Urdu language being president or Shakh of a spiritual chain, author of notable works, and author of considerable influence in research and literature on Islamic mysticism and spirituality. Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah ( talk) 16:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Seriously? There are only two sources on this article, from the same author...which is YOU. You've created an entire article citing only your own apparently self-published sources, which seems like a major conflict with WP:SELFCITE. Also, you basically copied most of your comment here from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Hanif Khan, which you also did on the last two AfDs about two related articles you created (which were ultimately deleted). MezzoMezzo ( talk) 07:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply
I agree regarding new references to strengthen contents. I do it shortly may be in next week after holidays. I don't think there is any violation of WP:SELFCITE provisions. If there, point out please to improve further. Yes i copied almost similar comments on both pages because i think both pages are in discussion due to almost similar problems. Your good suggestions are appreciated. Thank you for help. Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah ( talk) 11:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Page is according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Improvements are part of the game. 43.245.9.63 ( talk) 14:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC) Same IP only posting on AfDs and DRVs of articles created by this person? Yeah no, the DUCK is strong with this one. -- Majora ( talk) 21:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Author of books, editor in chief of a printed magazine that is being published in 17 years, translator of books, shakh or head in spiritual chain as saint, shrine and ceremonials after death, having highest awards from his armed forces head of country 'Chief of Air Staff Commendation Certificate' and from president of a country Pakistan ‘Tamgha-i-Khidmat - II’ ( WP:MILPEOPLE – If person has one highest award. He has two highest awards.) are supportive to his notability. If independent sources are not available on him as ‘saint’ it is not only the case in biographies of saints. High award winners always get published and discussed in departmental and national media. - 182.187.38.242 ( talk) 13:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC) — 182.187.38.242 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:34, 5 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. The arguments for keeping aren ot supported by policy: notability is claimed on the basis of his spiritual importance, though there is no way to document that. We cannot make an 1encyclopedia on such a principle. DGG ( talk ) 08:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Muhammad Hanif Khan

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

Another article from the promotional stable of User:Rahmatgee, next to Tauheediyah, Abdul Hakim Ansari and Muhammad Siddique Dar. Like the other three, this one also promotes a persona in a little-known religious group in Punjab, Pakistan. So little known that the person cannot be found on the English internet, and the article is entirely self-sourced (i.e., sourced to a publication by the said group). Article entirely fails WP:NBIO and should be deleted from English Wikipedia in my view, per WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. — kashmiri  TALK 20:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This seems to be, yet again, another case of little known South Asian religious figures receiving articles by dedicated local followers. This happens with an extremely high frequency and is almost always in good faith, but usually accompanied with attempts to continuously re-cite the same sources to inflate the reference section, poorly written prose and often very little claims of nobility aside from piety and faith. The most recent examples would be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Hakim Ansari and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tauheediyah. Like those, the article on Muhammad Hanif Khan fails the WP:GNG and also falls into advertisement issues. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 06:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Page is in accordance to WP:V of its sources, It is not problematic as satisfying WP:NOR recommendations. Additionally there are nothing to be considered as objectionable in view of WP:C. Write up is also satisfactory to WP:NPOV. Page under review has no issues related to WP:SELFPROMOTE. Contribution is covered under WP:CURATOR and is part of WP:COIU. Person satisfies WP:GNG and is in accordance to WP:SIGCOV in Urdu language being a saint. Authors refer him as the major source of innovating thought of Vision of absolute self of God. Spiritual chain such Tauheediyah is following his ideology and has its followers around the globe. Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah ( talk) 16:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply
There are only two sources cited here, both of which are associated with the now deleted Tauheediyah group (whose article you created and which failed all of the above mentioned guidelines and policies, like this article). How does an article with only two citations satisfy WP:GNG? And why did you just copy almost all of your comment here from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Siddique Dar, which is the same thing you did on the last two related articles that were deleted? MezzoMezzo ( talk) 07:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Yes two sources were cited and other were given for further readings. I think it is good not to add many references within the text. Should these be added? Further readings have independent sources as well. Some books cite Muhammad Hanif Khan as the originator of Vision of the absolute self of Muslims God; Allah. His personality has been discussed by some other scholars in connection to Abdul Hakim Ansari. Abdurrehman Killani also discussed his personality in detail in his comprehensive book 'Shariato tareeqat'. These are good evidence of notability and according to WP:GNG. Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah ( talk) 11:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Nothing wrong regarding policies and cite sources that have published and circulated. Person is famous saint. I read about him in any book that was not cited there. 43.245.9.63 ( talk) 14:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC) Same IP only posting on AfDs and DRVs of articles created by this person? Yeah no, the DUCK is strong with this one. -- Majora ( talk) 21:07, 4 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 02:33, 5 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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 08:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Sayyed Mohsen Fatemi

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

It seems statements are false and thus it doesn't meet criteria for notability. I checked Harvard website and couldn't find his name there [38]. :) Ladsgroup overleg 02:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 15:48, 5 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. Stifle ( talk) 08:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Madalyn Schiffel

Madalyn Schiffel (  | 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:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 02:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Kosack ( talk) 08:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication of any collage award to satisfy NCOLLATH. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy either NHSPHSATH or wider GNG. Have done a pretty exhaustive search and acknowledge that she is the starting goalkeeper for her club in Norway's top league per Soccerway, but I'm just not seeing GNG here. The only substantial coverage I can find for her consists of the following:
  1. A number of You tube videos focussing on her but all produced either by her college or the conference in which she competed. Therefore primary sources ineligible for GNG.
  2. Brief article but from a blog recognised as her college's official blog. Therefore primary source ineligible for GNG.
  3. Detailed career summary but from a club that she used to play for, not really independant enough for GNG.
  4. Reasonably lengthy article from her norwegian club but again a primary source.
  5. Couple of paragraphs of analysis following her draft. The only thing of note I could find from an independent source.
Fenix down ( talk) 11:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Question Delete based on discussion below @ Fenix down: Perhaps you can help on this. She has played a first team game in the Toppserien, evidence of which I found here and I assume there's more. Is this a professional team or league? It's not listed on WP:FPL at all but the Wikipedia article says it is professional. Obviously I'd support to keep if it is and delete if it is not (but as a WP:TOOSOON given her young age). KaisaL ( talk) 13:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Sure. What WP:FPL means is that consensus has been achieved that the league in question is "fully professional", i.e. that all clubs in a given league are professional and the players for the first team don't need to work in any other jobs. Whilst therefore, there maybe "professional elements" in the Toppsieren (I presume Madalyn is professional as she has moved from the US), not all the clubs, nor all the players are, or at least no consensus has been reached that they are. Confusingly, this does not mean they are not, simply that no discussion has been had around the league in question. This is not particularly useful for women's football as there is a globally lower level of professionalism due to the lower level of popularity / coverage the game gets. As such, most female players who are not senior internationals need to rely on GNG. In this instance I don't see it and although the player is a regular at her club in Norway, I don't think she has been there long enough to have generated significant independent coverage (interviews and the like) in Norwegian sources. Fenix down ( talk)
Ok, fair enough. I will go with your better judgement, then, and support a deletion. (It can be difficult to use WP:GNG for sports and competitive fields, I've had the same difficulty with eSports topics at AFD recently.) KaisaL ( talk) 13:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
You seem to have misinterpreted my list. WP:BASIC is not met because all substantial coverage of this player comes from primary sources. The link you have provided goes a little way to GNG but is insufficient on its own. Fenix down ( talk) 06:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Yeah, you'll need to search on https://www.google.no and do some translation as well. Some refs have been added. Article needs expansion, not deletion.. Hmlarson ( talk) 06:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick •  t •  c •  s 08:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick •  t •  c •  s 08:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick •  t •  c •  s 08:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick •  t •  c •  s 08:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Women's soccer in Norway is nowhere near fully professional; Schiffel as an import player may be semi-pro. More importantly, Schiffel's team Avaldsnes IL is scheduled to contest the Champions League in less than two months (see 2016–17 UEFA Women's Champions League#Group 8). It should give an indication that Avaldsnes is a leading team in Europe, and thus on the "highest level" of women's soccer in Norway and Europe. Geschichte ( talk) 09:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Does not meet GNG. She does not play in a fully professional league, so she is not meeting the notability guidelines for footballers. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as still nothing for the convincing independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. not my usual field, but playing in the top women's league in Norway should be acceptable, even if the league is not a highly notable or a fully profesional as the male leagues. She's at the top of the profession in her field. This is one of the acceptable ways of correcting our systematic bias. DGG ( talk ) 09:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, pro league argument not relevant for women, and no one has argumented against my comments above, to which I henceforth refer. If deleted, it would be without prejudice, and the article would be recreated when she plays in the Champions League. Geschichte ( talk) 18:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep every day of the week and twice on Sundays. This Wikipedia-specific (or Wikipedia football project-specific) concept of "fully professionalism" doesn't amount to a hill of beans. 94.8.65.103 ( talk) 20:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep We've seen in several recent discussions a lack of consensus to delete articles of top female footballers, with borderline media coverage, and a lack of national team appearances. This is due to systemic bias, we need to find ways to make the project more balanaced, not enforce rules that weren't designed to deal with this situation. We must remember that it is Wikipedia policy to Ignore All Rules. Nfitz ( talk) 17:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Clearly fails WP:NFOOTY. There is just no evidence that she is a top player: she never made a national selection (U23 does not count), she is not playing in a top league and never did. I realize that women's football gets much less coverage than men's football, but even with this discount there is no evidence she is any close to the top.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 10:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - what is that U23 selection? The Canadian and Brazilian squads use the full national team for tournaments where the men are U23, and the US sometimes sends a younger team. Was it a tournament didn't have a U23 requirement, and the US chose to send a U23 team anyway? Nfitz ( talk) 17:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - No need to invoke IAR. This footballer satisfies WP:V#Notability with multiple references. Also, the content verifies her international notability when she played the U-20ish playoffs. -- George Ho ( talk) 20:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Also, she satisfies the WP:BIO#Sports personalities, even when she might fail WP:NFOOTBALLER. -- George Ho ( talk) 20:43, 18 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. Euryalus ( talk) 11:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Natalie Stejskalova

I don't think that this article should be delete, because it's based on truth.

Natalie Stejskalova (  | 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. References in the article are made up of Youtube links, work profiles, dead links, and promotional blogs. Aust331 ( talk) 09:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:38, 1 July 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 // 01:31, 5 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) ansh 666 02:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Angus Dalgleish

Angus Dalgleish (  | 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 general notability criteria. Contested prod; marked as of questionable notability since Aug 2015. Only 2 of the citations given are independent reliable sources about the person and both are about a failed candidacy, so fails WP:NPOL. Bondegezou ( talk) 08:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:41, 1 July 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 // 01:31, 5 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) ansh 666 02:50, 13 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)

User:Gatoclass has expressed notability concerns regarding this article. This is a procedural nomination. SST flyer 10:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 10:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Just to be clear about this, I pulled a hook related to this article from the WP:DYK queue because I noticed the article had recently been recreated from a redirect with no apparent discussion, and as I didn't have time to look more closely at the issue, decided that discretion would be the better part of valour. So I have not personally taken a view on whether or not the article should be retained or merged back to the Trump article as it was previously. The issue does need to be resolved however, and I'd prefer to see that done by discussion rather than by unilateral decision. Gatoclass ( talk) 11:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Donald Trump and/or Marla Maples. Just not seeing independent notability for stand alone article; notability is not inherited. Kierzek ( talk) 19:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Seems to have some independent news coverage. At MOST, this should be a redirect to a section under Donald Trump. As such, I question why this was brought to AfD at all? The only alternative to keep here would be merge/redirect, which does not need an AfD entry. We're overcrowded here as it is... Fieari ( talk) 23:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is all fluff growing out of who her parents are, nothing that really passes General Notability Guidelines. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. She can be mentioned in her parents' articles, but nothing here suggests that she's earned a standalone BLP as an independent topic in her own right. Notability is not inherited, and the strongest claim of standalone notability here is the number of followers she has on Instagram — but no number of followers on any social networking platform constitutes a notability freebie in and of itself if that's the most substantive notability claim you can come up with. Bearcat ( talk) 04:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - breadth of articles indicate WP:GNG criteria is met. Article could use expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson ( talk) 00:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per this reference from the article, "Unlike Donald’s elder offspring — Donald Jr., 37; Ivanka, 34; and Eric, 31 — Tiffany hasn’t appeared on “The Apprentice” or even on the Manhattan charity-gala circuit." Intentionally or unintentionally, she has not gained the notability that her elder siblings have gained. Sometimes the sky is blue ( talk) 01:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC) Keep this discussion open for another two weeks. She is supposed to speak at the 2016 Republican National Convention next week, and at that point she could become notable, if she delivers a notable speech. Sometimes the sky is blue ( talk) 15:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply
That article is quite in-depth coverage of Tiffany Trump! ---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 03:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
This "in-depth" article, titled "What’s the deal with Donald Trump’s mystery daughter?" does not give any information about her to make her notable. Sometimes the sky is blue ( talk) 14:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Just in case it's not clear: she's a "mystery" because she is currently not notable. 19:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sometimes the sky is blue ( talk • contribs)
  • Keep - huge amount of sources available, including the in-depth CNN piece currently there. Definitely meets the GNG. ---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 03:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and expand – She is obviously receiving more attention now due to her father's presidential bid, however compared with the previous nomination for deletion there are now multiple independent RS covering her as an individual, not merely as "daughter of". Besides, if we moved back to a redirect, it would be hard to decide whether to redirect to Donald Trump or to Marla Maples, because she was raised by her mother despite bearing her father's name. Finally, to answer the point about having fewer personal accomplishments than her siblings, well she's also much younger so that's natural and expected. — JFG talk 05:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or merge: Yes, deletion will just get this article recreated again. Keep the link blue. Why this is an AfD and not a merge discussion is beyond me. She probably has enough notoreity and third-party coverage to meet GNG as a minor famous person. So she wouldn't likel be famous except for who her daddy is. That also could be said of her daddy... Montanabw (talk) 07:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Absolitely keep-Keep this soutce and just link her parents and family — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:247:C200:E5A:99D8:14C8:F349:72E ( talk) 07:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: her presumed notability is exclusively due to her father and likely to be only temporary.-- Desyman ( talk) 12:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Strong keep. The daughter of such a major world figure is likely to be somebody that people look for encyclopedic information on. It may be argued that it is not inherited, but somebody that is going to be referenced - even if just in passing - in major news articles over the coming months and be subject to scrutiny justifies inclusion here. KaisaL ( talk) 17:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Shifting to a strong keep because on further thought, of course she's notable. The Business Insider article even lampooned her lack of an article here. KaisaL ( talk) 23:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply

*Keep The article subject passes WP:GNG and therefore should be retained. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 10:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)Blocked sock. HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 06:54, 11 July 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 // 01:30, 5 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) 07:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Sutal Dolls

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

None notable musical group. Article's references and quick online search gave no evidence of notability. Aust331 ( talk) 10:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:34, 1 July 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 // 01:29, 5 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 America Sings#Incident and Renovation. Up to editors whether to merge anything more.  Sandstein  08:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Deborah Gail Stone

Deborah Gail Stone (  | 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 individual, known only for death, which while tragic, does not meet WP:GNG.Hasn't been covered by credible sources other than maybe Snopes. Sro23 ( talk) 20:09, 19 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 08:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Possible notability. Deborah Stone's death resulted in changes to a lot of Disneyland park rides and increased safety measures, and there seems to be some yet-to-be-researched evidence that her death helped to improve safety measures to a lot of theme parks. This might require more looking into. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:280:C400:E85:F178:C16F:37C3:EBD3 ( talk) 04:14, 29 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 // 01:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

*Delete Article subject does not pass WP:GNG. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 21:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)banned sock HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 06:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Comment I'm not going to withdraw my nomination because I still believe Stone fails basic notability. However clearly 2601:280:C400:E85:F178:C16F:37C3:EBD3 put hard work into finding more sources and information about the individual, so I wouldn't be opposed to redirecting and merging that content into the America Sings article. Sro23 ( talk) 16:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and then Redirect as there's still nothing convincing for the substance about her own article. SwisterTwister talk 23:01, 12 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  10:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Newt Syrup

Newt Syrup (  | 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:NOTDIR, WP:ENN. NN open-source program, no RS to assert notability. SPA creation by the developer, who tried to also create an article on himself, which was speedied. MSJapan ( talk) 17:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric ( talk) 13:41, 20 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 08:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Material doesn't have to be referenced to be eligible for merge. Some editors prefer merge material to be verifyable. Do you think this is contentious material or that there could be a problem verifying this content? ~ Kvng ( talk) 14:06, 6 July 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 // 01:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Literally, no independent sources available. I'm also opposed to a merge here, firstly, because the content is unsourced. But even if the content was sourced, I don't see a point of adding this to Newt (programming library). This application framework simply uses Newt for its user interface - it is not in any way "related" to newt. As an analogy, this framework uses Python and if we don't consider a merge to Python, we shouldn't consider a merge to Newt as well. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 15:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Oppose Merge per Lemongirl942 - there is little connection to Newt as these are separate pieces of software with different developers. Dialectric ( talk) 15:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as this was ridiculously removed despite its clear non-notability and unsourced state with no actual attempts of improving it; my analysis has also confirmed no apparent signs of better. SwisterTwister talk 23:00, 12 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) 07:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Slow programming

Slow programming (  | 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 term, likely WP:NEOLOGISM. No RS sources. The term is not mentioned in the source given (which despite being Salon, was pulled from AlterNet), and Google search turns up Reddit, Facebook, and blogs. MSJapan ( talk) 17:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:41, 19 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 08:25, 27 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 // 01:28, 5 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) 07:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Sex-androgyny in mythology

Sex-androgyny in mythology (  | 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:FORK. This was apparently broken out of Non-dualism back in 2013, but the content now is basically just pull-quotes from primary sources, and an unrelated tack-on from "modern medicine" at the end. The topics are covered much better elsewhere (as noted by the main links throughout), and representing Tantra and Plato as "mythology" is incorrect - they're philosophical. One of the major problems I see content-wise is that the Plato material is actually considered satire. The content issues aren't fixable within the presented context, because they don't fit it. MSJapan ( talk) 16:58, 19 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 08:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - This is one of those fairly rare examples of (prohibited) Original Research to make it to AfD. While there may (or may not) be a journal article in this topic, there aren't journal articles on this topic — it is a novel thesis backed by quotations from primary sources. Said to be a fork above, which I don't opine upon. Delete per NO OR. Carrite ( talk) 21:48, 29 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 // 01:28, 5 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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 19:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Tarun Anand

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

NN person. The award doesn't have any GHits, and the only real significant coverage is the NYT article. MSJapan ( talk) 00:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 19:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 02:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 02:08, 27 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 08:27, 27 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 // 01:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG by a mile and also WP:BLP1E. The New York Times article is no doubt significant coverage. But this is trivial coverage where they have quoted the subject. And apart from these 2, there is literally no other coverage of the subject. This does not pass GNG at all. In addition, this is essentially BLP1E as both mention he subject in context of the company. Wikipedia is not a directory of non-notable people who are the founders of a non-notable company. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 23:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as the listed 2 sources are quite unconvincing attempts at making this seem actually notable....when it is not, there's nothing at all suggestive of the needed independent notability and thus should've been deleted as PROD. SwisterTwister talk 22:49, 12 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, WP:SOFTDELETE-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Ahmed Hassan (Actor)

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

Not enough references to proof his notability. GreenCricket (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:42, 19 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 08:26, 27 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 // 01:27, 5 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. clear consensus after relsiting DGG ( talk ) 09:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Lora Flattum

Lora Flattum (  | 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 pageant winner of Miss Virginia. Outside of winning the event, I cannot find any other information that would make her meet WP:GNG RickinBaltimore ( talk) 18:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Neutral. I've just beefed up the article to describe her accomplishments in elder care law and science research. She prob wouldn't meet GNG on any one of these things alone but I think the sum qualifies. Innisfree987 ( talk) 15:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply
I'm changing my vote as I see Lemongirl's point about inadequacy of sources for notability, and I haven't found more sources to add. I'm going to leave my opinion as neutral though, as candidly I don't especially see what's gained in deleting: I think there are enough sources for a verifiable article and in aggregate, especially with founding the UVA clinic on elder law, I continue to think there's reason to think this person is worthy of notice, but, I'm willing to defer to community consensus on how we assess the notability question. Innisfree987 ( talk) 18:42, 14 July 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 // 01:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

*Keep As per Innisfree987 and the added sources this article subject meets WP:GNG and should be retained. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 22:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC) banned sock HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 06:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I'm sorry, but I do not see how GNG is met. GNG requires significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, independent of the subject. I searched myself and also looked at the sources added to the article.
  1. [44] Not an independent source, it is a routine profile on a website of the foundation she works at.
  2. [45] Not an independent source. This is a journal, containing a research paper authored by here. This is not a secondary source.
  3. [46], [47], [48], [49] Local sources (limited to 2 newspapers) which cover the subject in context of the beauty pageant.
Sub-national beauty pageant winners are not considered automatically notable. Local sources are not used for proving GNG. I do not see any evidence that the subject passes GNG and in addition, over here it seems like a case of WP:BLP1E. I would be glad if someone can actually show me verifiable evidence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 19:13, 7 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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 19:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Gary Havoc & The Hurricanes

Gary Havoc & The Hurricanes (  | 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 verifiably meet WP:NBAND, possible WP:HOAX. Discogs lists one album. The artist's own website has no discography on it. Worldcat lists the same album. In short, I think all the material in the article is made-up. If Havoc worked on Xena, I should be able to find a credit (not that it matters to the band). I should be able to find internationally-known artists from the 1980s. I can't find anything after 1979 in NZ, even. Created by SPA. MSJapan ( talk) 04:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment, I'm sure the group isn't made up. The NZ Nat library holds a copy. There are also copies for sale on some websites. In discogs the contributors to the page are established plus one Discoger who owns a copy has a history going back to 2009. And as far as Havoc having worked on Xena, it's likely that Havoc is his stage name. He probably goes by his given name. After all, New Zealand's Russell Crowe, (Sorry Aussies but Crowe was born in NZ) was known as Russ Le Roq in his days on the NZ music scene and probably give or take a couple of years, was in the same era. Karl Twist ( talk) 10:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 15:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Reply - I know the group isn't made up; I'm concerned as to their notability, which requires more than existence. I'm even more concerned because the international major label releases (which would establish notability for certain) appear to be what is made up. I've found plenty of references to the first vinyl release in 1979, so I don't feel that's in question, but it's a single, so it's not going to meet WP:NBAND by itself. Just as an FYI to save time, discogs isn't RS because it's user-generated content, and Havoc's work outside the band doesn't matter to the band, so don't focus on anything about those. MSJapan ( talk) 12:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Reply - Quite likely the Desire single Desire (Includes the songs "So Divine", "Broken Heart" and 2 others) - WEA HAVOC 1 is an obscure release. I know of recordings that have been released that have no trace on the internet. Not yet anyway! The Gary Havoc & The Hurricanes release, "The way I am", "The letter" / "Rich kid", "Ponsonby" - RTC RTS 71012 is not actually a single. It is actually an extended play. It could be considered a mini-album. Looking at Discogs, yes it relies on user-generated content, but it's still a good and valuable source for info. The validity of info can be gauged by the checking of the profiles and their input over a period of time. There may be other aspects of Gary Havoc which could be, and probably relevant to this article. It wonder if The Mynah Birds would be that notable if Rick James and Neil Young hadn't hit the big time. Karl Twist ( talk) 11:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
PS: - Further to my post. The Desire album musicians mentioned exist. Mark Huckstep is one of them. [50] Simon Hanna is another. As you can see, Hanna has played on recordings recorded at Mandrill Recording Studios [51] Karl Twist ( talk) 11:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Except neither of those entities have articles, and existence is not notability. The problem with adding in material about Gary Havoc himself is that this is not a bio of Gary Havoc, it's a band article, and the band is not going to inherit notability. Put another way, if Jared Leto had started 30 Seconds to Mars and they never went anywhere as an ensemble, the band would not have an article just because Jared Leto was in it. Part of the problem here is that the band doesn't even have discography on its website, and what's in the article now actually fails WP:V, and thus clearly doesn't meet WP:BAND. MSJapan ( talk) 18:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The fact that those entities don't have articles is not the issue here. I just put forward the name of Mark Huckstep and Simon Hanna forward to show that the Desire recording is not .... "appear to be what is made up", because those musicians do exist! Just because they don't have articles on Wikipedia makes no difference. They are just given to back up Graham Reid's article on Elsewhere, dated Jul 30, 2014. You also says, "Part of the problem here is that the band doesn't even have discography on its website". Yes that is part of A problem. But, I think that this is being rectified. The website is a work in progress from what I can see and I have a feeling the person of interest may be lacking in website building skills. Anyway there is an indication there that there will be updates. Incidentally there is a profile of the band in the Auckland Star but it is not available for online viewing. It's in archive status. Not sure how to get the content. Anyway the band's touring schedule which can be gauged from the adverts in various papers show it had toured around a large part of New Zealand's North Island as well as having performed in Australia. Karl Twist ( talk) 11:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow further development on the article. Nakon 00:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 00:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Comment - I don't doubt the authenticity of this band, but they don't seem especially well known in New Zealand. I've been looking for references to beef up the article, but I cannot find anything online that meets with the WP:NBAND requirements. Quite a few articles briefly mention the band's name in passing, but there's nothing substantial written about the band. We really need something like this AudioCulture profile of The Spelling Mistakes. As an alternative to having a stand-alone article on Gary Havoc & The Hurricanes, is there a larger related article that could incorporate this as a section? Something about New Zealand punk history? A record label history? Robyn2000 ( talk) 10:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Reply - I do believe the article will satisfy most people that it should be stand alone. Time is needed as well as some access to archives that I can't access. Perhaps the coverage today isn't as revealing as some of the more well known NZ artists on Wikipedia but I have seen strong indications that there was good coverage of the group in the late 70s and early 80s. There was a bit about them in the Auckland Star. There were many adds in papers and mags for their playing various venues in NZ. There is more coverage of them in Rip it Up that I can access online as well. Also in some other in Kiwi Rock mag. I also came across a neat little article about them in a paper but sadly I lost my search place. It came up in a search of other similar artists of the time and there it was. I will try and repeat the search which only comes up in image format. They are also included in Discography of New Zealand Popular Music, 1960-1990: Rock, Jazz, Folk, Blues, and Bluegrass list. They also received an IRANZ award for their EP / Mini album. Most of the expansion of the article you see from here to here is due to the work of one person, me! I'm not in NZ and don't have access to libraries and other references that folks in NZ have. As for AudioCulture. It's great and a great place to reference. However, it's only been around 31 May 2013. It's a growing site and I dare say that at some stage Gary Havoc & Co will be on there. As it is now, GH&TH are IMO an important pivotal point in the career of musicians that went on to bigger name bands, and at least one of the musicians from the band may have enough notability to have a page of his own. I'm doing research on this. Sadly I haven't got the time I'd like to have to do more for this article, but I will give it as much attention as my time allows. Karl Twist ( talk) 12:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. The band definitely existed and is referred to a few times in the seminal "Stranded in Paradise: New Zealand Rock'n'Roll 1955-1988" by John Dix. Some notability in that (according to Dix) their EP was self-financed and successful, the first time that had happened with a New Zealand band, and as such kick-started to boom in self-released records ("Stranded in Paradise", pp. 219, 294). Ex GH&H member Gary Hunt later joined top NZ punk band The Terrorways, as well. The venue, by the way, was Zwines, not Swines. Grutness... wha? 02:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Reply Could this instead be turned into a paragraph in the The Terrorways article, then? I would consider them to be a band with greater cultural significance than Gary Havoc & The Hurricanes. Robyn2000 ( talk) 07:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Yeah, I could support that. Grutness... wha? 02:19, 13 July 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 // 01:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Appears to fail NBAND and SIGCOV. Suspected either COI or COPYVIO (or it could just be poorly written). DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 03:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
    Comment - Please tell me where the COI is???? I have done most of work on this article from here to here. I picked it up from where it was left off and in a shambles as I have with other articles such as See Patrick Pinney discussion. Before I started it was here, and after managed to get it to here nothing to do with the band and it doesn't matter if whoever started did! Most of the work has been done by me. Also, where is the COPYVIO ?????? Karl Twist ( talk) 09:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as the consensus shows there's still questionability about sourcing and information thus, although the article may seem acceptable, it's best deleted until things can be bolted as confirmed. SwisterTwister talk 22:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply
    Comment - It would be a big mistake to delete to delete this article as this will lessen the chance of helpful information to strengthen the article. This band has an important place in New Zealand history as one of the key bands in the New Zealand late 70s rock scene. Along with The Terrorways, Satellite Spies and other bands on the scene in in NZ at the time, Gary Havoc & The Hurricanes were prominent back then as shown in Rip It Up. This one of the multiple articles that they were featured in, and had a solid amount of coverage. Another thing that needs to be realized is that GH&TH were also an important stepping stone for musicians such as Gary Hunt, and Graeme Scott who had a huge presence and impact on the NZ music scene. When you look at this group in perspective, the importance of then becomes obvious. I knew next to nothing about this group before I came across it in articles for deletion. Something was bugging me about them and I decided to look a little more into it to see if it was worthwhile saving. Not only did I discover it was worthwhile saving as I worked to improve it, I realized that with what limited sources I had to work with that many other influential and important NZ bands are overlooked. Often this is why sourcing info takes time. I now change my Keep for now to a strong keep as I have discovered the importance of this group in the NZ and Auckland City rock scene. You can measure the growth of the article from here before I decided to improve it to here. That's basically just the work of one man to improve it. Just imagine if 5 others found info and added to it. Think what you'd see then!!! Think about it! You would see more and more info. Delete this article and I guarantee you wont! Karl Twist ( talk) 10:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
You've thrown in a lot of garbage, actually. You've coatracked everything you could find with the band's name in it, and a lot of it is expressly not a reliable source. It's fine to work on an article, but you've extrapolated a lot of information from concert notices, and that's not appropriate. You still haven't made a case for anything more than local coverage with all that. Seeing that someone played a club, and writing a blurb about them playing at the club does not establish notability. You seem to be under the impression that this band should have an article because they exist, and that disputing the article is in turn disputing the band's existence. Basically, you have made it very clear that you feel that this band not having an article is Wikipedia saying this band doesn't exist. That's an irrelevant argument; the fundamental point is that existence is not notability, and we still have seen nothing to substantiate anything that would make the group meet the relevant notability guidelines. What you did say is stuff like "they had a local article with a picture of the group." So what? Why is the picture important? Writing an article about the existence of sources on the band is not an article about the band. So what you've expanded is a bunch of useless fluff for the most part. The fact that there's a poster with a concert date doesn't mean anything, but you've pretty much loaded all that in there as well. In short, read the requirements, and then read what you've done, because you've put in a lot of work that's done essentially nothing to address the concerns noted. MSJapan ( talk) 17:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Reply to the above. Now you are saying I'm throwing in garbage. Look, I'm not going to get into a silly argument with you because it appears that this is the direction in where it could head. Show me where the garbage is please? You were the one that originally nominated this for deletion and you said - " I think all the material in the article is made-up" ..., which is totally incorrect as you and I both know! Yes I admit that I have used concert notices from various websites, but this is to show where the band was playing. I do this for the interest of the readers who either have an interest in the band or have an interest in New Zealand rock music history. You said - "You seem to be under the impression that this band should have an article because they exist". ... That's not only a reckless thing to say. It's also grossly incorrect and by saying that you are being misleading. Possibly unintentionally. The reason why I voted to save this article and did work to improve it is because I believe they have a place in NZ rock history and they are notable. If I didn't think so I wouldn't have bothered with this. Actually, I would have given up halfway though what I have done to date! And replying to your - "What you did say is stuff like "they had a local article with a picture of the group." So what? Why is the picture important?" ... Goodness! I'm just mentioning that the article in the Auckland Star, 25 September 1979, Profile of Auckland new wave band "Gary Havoc and the Hurricanes"., had a picture. Nothing more! How does mentioning the picture become an issue? I thought Wikipedia was about information. Interested people like information. Anyway, I just wrote that how I read it. Nothing more! IMO you seem to be cherry picking certain edits I made to say that this is all I have done to improve the article. Not so! So far I have seen 2 members here saying that the band was a hoax and also using terms like suspected COI or COPYVIO. All untrue! I said it before and I will say it again. I believe this band to be notable and an important part of NZ Rock music history. I'm sorry, but from the get go you were incorrect and the reasons you have given to have the article deleted don't really make sense because you are using your own view without taking info account other factors. Look, if you were to go through the records at Auckland library as well as the Sydney library, I believe you would be quite enlightened. BTW: Havoc working on Xena will be something to look into. I don't think that Havoc is his real name. This would be his stage name. Why don't you help us improve instead of trying to remove? Karl Twist ( talk)
The fact remains the following: I said "possible" hoax, and you took it to mean "definite" and have been pissed-off about that ever since. So don't tell me I'm the one misreading. This group does not meet WP:NBAND. The fact is that every item that was originally in the article that would have proven notability has not been able to have been sourced, and has been removed. You've got a band with a local career, and you can't source a major label release, a major tour, or anything else. Instead you have filled out content in the article by using local concert announcements, and those don't meet WP:RS per WP:NMUSIC #1. The fact that Gary worked on Xena by himself is irrelevant to the band. I stand by my original statements, because COPYVIO is COPYVIO whether it's true or not. A COI is COI whether the information is true or not. You are the one in error here, and all your additions are WP:FANCRUFT that don't make a difference to establishing WP:NBAND. MSJapan ( talk) 14:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Whoaah Dude / Dudette !! Steady on there! I'm not p'd off about anything. LOL why are you even going there? Please do not throw around the term WP:FANCRUFT. That's irresponsible. I hope you won't reach any deeper. Look, please take note. To me this is nothing more than a group who's music I don't really care for. Give me Blood Sweat & Tears, Chicago, Earth Wind & Fire, Sly & The Family Stone, and now were talking! That's real music! The Australasian pub rock genre is something that doesn't even excite me. My approach to this article, and the info on the band contained within is purely from an appreciation of noteworthy info angle. Nothing more.! I'm not the one who started this damned article. I am slightly annoyed at User talk:Andru0711, the creator of this article for not putting in more references which has cost me time and effort. But it has been worth it in a way. This is because I have learnt a bit more about the group and the members who are prominent on the Kiwi rock scene. I have also become aware that many notable Kiwi bands have hard to find referencing and we often need to go to books that have been written about these groups. Not only do we then discover (as I have here) the notability of them but also the important historical value!. The group is notable and two of the former members in the band could have articles on their own. BTW: There's more than local concert announcements. Much more! They got good coverage in Rip It Up, and more than what I have been able to access on line. Also we need someone to go and check out the article in the Auckland Star, 25 September 1979, Profile of Auckland new wave band "Gary Havoc and the Hurricanes". I believe the paper had a massive circulation. BTW: Where is the COI and where is the COPYVIO?? Thanks Karl Twist ( talk) 02:52, 15 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) 07:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Cigar Dave

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

Appears to lack significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Sources are either the subject or radio stations that carry the show promoting it. Probably a good guy, probably good at his job, but not necessarily notable. Doesn't appear to pass WP:CREATIVE. Niteshift36 ( talk) 01:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

--DELETE. a lot of self-promotion, no independent sources of note.[[ NotHoratio ( talk) 02:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)]] reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:17, 5 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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 19:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply

WikiPock

AfDs for this article:
WikiPock (  | 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 previous AfD closed no consensus. 7 years later, I don't see the kind of coverage I would expect from a product of that age with "a growing user base", other than advertising typical of apps. No one noted the SPA whose only edit was to create this article at the time. MSJapan ( talk) 03:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep – as meeting WP:GNG and per WP:NTEMP. Weak delete: Two articles found thus far that provide significant coverage and are published by independent, reliable sources (see below). Of course, more sources would be optimal; maybe other users will find more. Perhaps this could be merged somewhere? North America 1000 04:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • The source articles have entirely different content. Check out the English-translated version of the El País article. "Diario" means "daily" in Spanish; this word in the url of the source is very likely to denote internally within their company that it was an article published in their daily edition, because it is a daily publication. North America 1000 04:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I have changed my !vote to "weak delete". North America 1000 21:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 00:24, 27 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 // 01:19, 5 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 History of podcasting#Timeline. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 02:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Odiogo

Odiogo (  | 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 product, website defunct, seems to have been taken over by Wordpress exclusively, so the scope of the product as noted in the article isn't verifiable. Was deprodded on the basis of one CNET article in 2007, which is still the only source on it. MSJapan ( talk) 03:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply

References

Comment - If you're going to vote, then make a choice; keep and merge are not the same thing. MSJapan ( talk) 20:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC) reply
My preference is to keep. A merge may or may not happen later but needn't involve AfD. ~ Kvng ( talk) 14:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 00:24, 27 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 // 01:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. I agree with Northamerica1000's reasoning - the one source doesn't demonstrate that this topic needs a standalone article. Enterprisey ( talk!) (formerly APerson) 19:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as there's nothing actually to suggest its significant connections to the history article itself. Any information can simply be mentioned there as needed, but there's nothing at all to suggest any actual independent notability thus there's no explanation why we should keep this. SwisterTwister talk 22:42, 12 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 per WP:SK#1. North America 1000 05:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply

SPE John Franklin Carll Award

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

should merge with Society of Petroleum Engineers. Doesn't merit an article Rathfelder ( talk) 21:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL ( talk) 00:09, 5 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_5&oldid=1142622207"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE