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

Brandon Gill

Brandon Gill (  | 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 claims to be about a musician but it reads as if it is about a group. Whatever it is about it is sourced from a few very local sources in Illinois and there is nothing substantive or reliable her. Fails WP:GNG   Velella   ^{Velella Talk}   22:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply

He is very accomplished and is still making music. His income is about $100,000 a year from music. He has almost a million. Dennis D. Dennis Drust ( talk) 21:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply

His groups are very well know and many people read this page. David Robbins 21:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandon Michael Gill ( talk • contribs)

• Delete. So clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO. I wasn't able to locate any additional, independent verifiable sources to indicate this subject is encyclopedic. The contributors above are likely WP:COI, besides, what he possibly earns per year based on his membership in a band is not valid cause for notability. ERK ^talk 04:08, 29 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. JohnCD ( talk) 12:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Deirdre Wadding

Deirdre Wadding (  | 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 local councillor who failed to get elected at the last general election. I see nothing notable about being "openly pagan". CivisHibernius ( talk) 22:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete non-notable member of a county council. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. While a county councillor can get into Wikipedia if they can be sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG, it is not a level of office that confers an automatic WP:NPOL pass on all county councillors — but the sourcing here, which relies on two news articles and a raw table of election results, is not solid enough to satisfy GNG. And being an unelected candidate in the national election is not a notability freebie either. Bearcat ( talk) 15:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Not enough to pass WP:GNG. As the editor mentioned above, this subject does not qualify under WP:NPOL either. ERK ^talk 04:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 14:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Khuram Dhanani

Khuram Dhanani (  | 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 prodded this article in Oct. 2015, but it's creator (a true WP:SPA) added some additional sources afterwards. Looking more closely at those sources, I still have some concerns that this is a misuse of Wikipedia for promotion, and that this person is not notable.

• The Forbes piece is lengthy, but it's an interview conducted by a "contributor", which should not be confused with their journalism. Interviews are poor for establishing notability, since they are not fully independent of the subject. The author's bio there says that in addition to being a freelance journalist, he also runs a "boutique PR Company", which is okay, but not a great sign. Forbes hosts a lot of blog content with only limited editorial oversight, much like Huffington Post's "The Blog".
• There was also a Huffington Post link in the EL section: "The Millionaire E-commerce Titan Making Big Deals: Khuram Dhanani". The link is now dead, and the title is... odd, which suggests this was another blog post. It looks like all of the author's posts there have been deleted [1] but he appears to be a nootropic pill and powder seller, not a journalist or recognized expert.
• The Inc. article is an editorial column by a PR person, not a journalist or academic. It does contain some limited details about Dhanani, but most of it just repeats Dhanani's generic business advice without any additional commentary.
• The Tech Cocktail article is even more generic and light on substance, and the reliability of that source is debatable.
• The C4commerce.com link is dead, but unless the domain got repurposed recently, that isn't an outlet for reliable sources.
• This interview is from Bosmol Social Media, which just looks like some guy's blog to me.
• This source is just a site where Dhanani posted in the comment section! This suggests bombardment.
• This is an article written by Dhanani which doesn't establish notability, and the site isn't reliable anyway.

I looked for additional sources, but found nothing of note beyond self promotion. Grayfell ( talk) 22:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. It is apparent that the sources are just the result of aggressive PR. Xxanthippe ( talk) 23:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC). reply
• Delete non-notable businessperson. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete as WP:G5. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Pavel(Film Director)

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

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

English language sources are hard to come by. I don't know the subject's full name in Bengali, so I can't check that. Also, this article's in a right state. Adam9007 ( talk) 22:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Gerald Uelmen

Gerald Uelmen (  | 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 defense attorney in the highly notable O.J. Simpson murder trial and also had an accomplished career as an academic, writer and civil servant, but there doesn't seem to be much coverage of him as an individual outside of passing mentions Prisencolin ( talk) 21:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep. Some citations in GS plus legal activities. Xxanthippe ( talk) 23:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC). reply
• Keep. There's some work to be done here, for sure, but there are enough good sources around to meet notability for me. As mentioned above, he has some GS citations, and is former Dean of Santa Clara University Law School. There's enough for me to suggest he qualifies as WP:ACADEMIC. It's also worth noting that his role on O.J.'s legal team wasn't exactly minor. ERK ^talk 04:28, 29 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. JohnCD ( talk) 12:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Mike Baird (television presenter)

Mike Baird (television presenter) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

He exists and appeared on TV but that is about as far as the single ref takes us. You don't get notability just by appearing on TV. Fails WP:GNG   Velella   ^{Velella Talk}   21:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete non-notable television figure and real estate figure. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete - note that I moved this article from its original title of Mike Baird (Flipman Mike) (and trimmed the original intro of "Mike Baird is a father, husband, and successful real estate investor and design educator. He is the host and creator of the reality TV show"), whoever wrote this may have intended him to be more famous as something else. But I can't find any reliable secondary sources about him in any of these contexts. -- McGeddon ( talk) 07:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. My mom loves these type of shows, but she's not a reliable source, nor is subject notable. — Wylie pedia 05:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. There's nothing, source wise, to indicate his notability. The single source is hardly enough to pass WP:GNG and really, doesn't do too much to indicate what makes him encyclopedic. As per nom, appearing on TV doesn't confer automatic notability. ERK ^talk 04:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Non notable TV presenter. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Keep per no calls for deletion beyond the nominator and unanimous consensus from the participating editors. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended ( talk) 13:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Zentradi

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

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

Notability is not established. Other than a couple production details, only in-universe plot material is sourced. There don't seem to be any good sources for critical impact of the topic. TTN ( talk) 21:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 21:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Calathan ( talk) 21:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Speedy/strong Keep I was originally going to comment and then provisionally lean towards keep until I found some sources. However the first source I found was Anime Classics Zettai! which compares the Zentradi to the Laputans in Gulliver's Travels and s a parody/social commentary on human tendencies. It also makes further comments about a particular group of Zentradi, again making social commentary in a different way. These strike me as extremely strong indications of notability from a single source because they are compared to both a well known piece of fiction as well as the very real world study of humanity. This is before we consider that the Zentradi are a third of the drive behind the story of the first Macross series (the others being the titular vehicle and the love triangle) so there are 30+ years of reviews and other discussions on them as a core component. This subject matter strikes me very much as less a case of a debate over notability, and more a case of finding the best sources out of the many that exist. The cleanup is easy. SephyTheThird ( talk) 23:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) (alternate spelling preferred in Robotech)

• Keep Plenty of independent RS'es exist. I've left out any primary sources, and note that this fictional race appears in both multiple anime series and multiple book adaptations. News: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5... Books: 6, 7, 8, 9... Scholar: 10, 11... Jclemens ( talk) 23:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• The grand majority of those are just simple name-drops without any context, making them worthless for this article. The fact that it's mentioned in the larger context of the series a bunch of times doesn't really scream notability. TTN ( talk) 23:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • But you didn't propose to merge it anywhere; you nominated it for deletion. I'm still in favor of keeping it as a standalone article, but you'd've had more of a leg to stand on if you'd proposed a merger. Considering that there are two very different interpretations of this race, from Super Dimensional Fortress Macross and from Robotech, that would be a poor choice as well, so I prefer to keep it as a standalone article. Jclemens ( talk) 20:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply

For what it's worth I don't think there is an issue with the nomination, even though I strongly disagree with it. Ultimately there is a cause for concern with the article and bringing a discussion to AFD to propose a merge isn't very sensible. There are better ways to propose merges. Some AFD's do discuss the option of a merge, but these are almost as second options when the nom realises there is a fine line. Besides, I don't think a merger is suitable. Either the article has enough sources or it doesn't and we then decide if we expect to find them. A merge wouldn't make sense because of the nature of the information, you'd be looking more at a redirect and writing new content. Also where would you merge or redirect it to given that as you point out there are multiple adaptations of the same source material not to mention the subsequent media entries that also make use of them. SephyTheThird ( talk) 21:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep Some things are surprisingly notable, this one based on the sources looks to be one of them . - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 00:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep: for the above reasons. There is plenty of RS'es to support this page. Aoba47 ( talk) 05:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep one of the most notable alien races in anime history along with Saiyan (Dragon Ball). Here's a recent Forbes magazine article and even then it's not a casual mention. [2] AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 17:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• I know the outcome isn't going to change at this point, but am I just not understanding how notability works? This is hardly really any different than any of the Transformers cruft I've nominated recently. I'm sure half of those could have a decent amount of sources where the source itself is reliable, but the actual content is limited to all of a name-drop. Including the above, pretty much every source listed here is utterly trivial. It seems like everybody is going with the mindset that "the topic 'should' be notable, so it should just be assumed that there's plenty of sources on it." I'm sure you could get five or ten sources mentioning the topic, but so far those mentions are all of nothing. The little note about how they thematically used the music in the above source is something, but that's much more geared towards a section for the main series article on music. TTN ( talk) 20:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply

TTN, if I can put it bluntly, you thrive on kicking down sandcastles little children have built in the sand because they don't meet building codes. Sure, there's a lot of stuff that's not encyclopedic, but what you are ignoring is that all of these volunteer editors' labors that you deride as cruft, they donated their time and keystrokes to Wikipedia to create because they believed that it should be shared. Copyright violations and self-promotion are excluded, of course, but the fact is that it's highly unlikely that people who made money off of any of these fictional products, entities, races, literary elements, or what have you ever contributed to Wikipedia... None of it was for personal profit; all of it was for the love of the story. In this specific case, Zentradi/Zentraedi have appeared in Anime, novel adaptations, and role playing games seen and read and played by millions. Millions. Worldwide. Notability is meant to be a tool to remove someone's garage band, something made up in one day, stuff that were inside jokes that no one--or at most scores or hundreds of people--ever cared about. What you nominate are fictional elements experienced by tens of thousands to millions of people. You don't argue that they be merged or otherwise curated into better, more encyclopedic presentations, you condemn them to deletion and force others to spend effort to overcome the current state of the article to show the potential within. The thing is, you're usually correct--these are lame articles on moderately unimportant topics--but your approach to them is offensive to those who would like to see things streamlined, referenced, trimmed, improved, and presented better. What the Encyclopedia needs, when dealing with fictional elements, is not people kicking down lame sand-castles, but rather people taking time to improve what's already been donated. The seeds of good coverage lie within these articles, and the right thing to do isn't to delete them because they currently suck, creating holes rather than poor coverage, but rather to curate them. I'd LOVE to have the time to go through and do everything I just said, but I spend my time instead opposing you and people who see the encyclopedia the way you do, rather than a labor of love, imperfect and in need of serious effort. None of this is to say that I think you're malicious--I just think you're entirely wrong. Notability, to answer your original question, is there to express what should already be in the encyclopedia: information on things which external folks of some reputability have already decided to write about. But notability is the servant of the encyclopedia--and a good one, make no mistake--but not its master. Jclemens ( talk) 06:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply

I rather think you've missed the point, which given that half of your post is a rant against the system and vowing to protect articles doesn't surprise me. Talking about peoples time and edits as if they are somehow protected when the site states clearly that all contributions are subject to editing. Let's also be clear, I'll be doing a massive cleanup of the article if it is kept, so the article will be edited towards verifiable information that serves the subject, which means removing half of it at least. Holes in coverage does not mean having articles for everything, but rather than the articles we have cover the topic adequately according to an articles specific needs. Rather than attacking people who nominate pages in good faith, you should spend that time and energy actually improving articles. That's what defines contributions to the encyclopaedia, not running through and waving keep at everything. SephyTheThird ( talk) 09:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Speaking for myself, I don't think there is anything wrong with your idea of notability. Indeed, on most similar articles I would be inclined to agree with you. I think this is a special case however. There is a vast amount of coverage on this franchise, and while ridiculous legal wrangling has limited the western releases of this series, the first series has had at least 4 releases in both forms and has received ongoing coverage for 30 years. The problem is one of logistics, going through that much coverage is going to take time and is not realistically possible during and AFD period. I appreciate the need for a massive cleanup of this article and it could ultimately serve as a redirect target for some of the individual characters, which would only helps it's case. Now I'm so confident if being able to find other sources given time that I would welcome another AFD in 6 months if the article doesn't gain further sourcing. I'm aware that Animerica has some possible sources but I can't access my full collection at this moment. As for the previous source I mentioned, while I haven't added it to the article yet, I believe it's a pretty good evidence of notability by itself. [3] Then there is Protoculture Addicts which although started as a fanzine, became an ongoing long running general magazine and while that introduces a separate debate on the suitability go it's fanzine content, it may suffice for supporting evidence with other sources. SephyTheThird ( talk) 09:17, 28 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. Per the lack of referencing or substantial article content I have opted against a relist. KaisaL ( talk) 00:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Omega Doom (Transformers)

Omega Doom (Transformers) (  | 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 character does not establish notability. TTN ( talk) 21:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 21:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. No evidence of real-world significance. Josh Milburn ( talk) 21:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete as this is Wikipedia, not Wikia, there's nothing for an actual encyclopedia-suited article. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 30 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. As the first AFD only failed due to nobody participating, it is uncontroversial to go with the clear consensus here. KaisaL ( talk) 14:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply

EnlightenNext

EnlightenNext (  | 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 missed commenting at the first AfD and my searches are now finding nothing better at all aside from a few several links at News and browsers....nothing actually convincing. Notifying 1st AfDer I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc. SwisterTwister talk 20:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Per nom. Considering no one weighed in at the first AFD, I'll also post a link to this AFD at WP:FTN, just to get the word out as I'm not sure what projects to notify and the integral movement seems to come up at FTN quite a bit. Maybe redirect to Integral theory (Ken Wilber)? It seems like that's what has been happening with most of the non-notable integral movement pages recently. —PermStrump (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Fringe stuff should be added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative Views so it comes up on said project's article alerts - David Gerard ( talk) 09:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • David Gerard: I had no idea that was a project. Thanks! —PermStrump (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Apparently it's already on my watchlist. :-P —PermStrump (talk) 20:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply

This is the one to watchlist: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Alternative_Views/Article_alerts - David Gerard ( talk) 22:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete per OP. 142.105.159.60 ( talk) 01:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete - the references are skimpy and unconvincing - David Gerard ( talk) 09:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete Sources do not establish notability, and the article has a glaring promotional angle. Should simply redirect to the founder. Delta13C ( talk) 13:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Keep as per no calls for deletion beyond the nominator and a unanimous consensus (albeit in various degrees of strength) to keep the article among the editors participating in this discussion. Going forward, it might be a good idea to keep a lookout for better sourcing for this subject, lest we go for another AfD. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended ( talk) 13:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply

David Letele

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

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

Originally deleted per G4 as not significantly different from the version previously deleted at AfD for failing WP:NBOXING and WP:GNG, but restored after discussion to send to AfD for community consensus. -- Patar knight - ^chat/ _{contributions} 19:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep Thanks, Patar knight, for restoring this. I suggest that since the previous AfD discussion in October 2015, Letele has achieved general notability. There was previously a substantial article in The New Zealand Herald (August 2015), and since then we have had an interview with Mens Mag NZ (undated, but published on their Facebook page on 17 April 2016, although they published a lot of stuff that day and I don't know whether that was about getting older content onto the FB site), Newshub reporting (6 March 2016), a 5:49 min interview with Paul Henry (6 May 2016), and a fairly long article in the The Sunday Star-Times (21 May 2016). That should be more than sufficient. Schwede 66 20:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep, WP:NBIO estabished and reliably with secondary sources. ( Ajf773 ( talk) 08:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)) reply
• @ JTtheOG, Bennyaha, PRehse, NealeFamily, Mdtemp, and Papaursa: I thought I'd ping everybody who has participated in the previous deletion discussion, as editors may not have this article on their watchlist. Schwede 66 08:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment The original AfD was correct and mainly hinged on not meeting WP:NBOX - a situation that remains. I do remember the article enough to see that there are more references and some expansion of non-boxing information but frankly neither the Rugby or having a Weight-loss regime contribute to his notability. So the question boils down to WP:GNG and that would reflect news coverage. I want to think about this a bit more and see what others say. I do think that the article is in a better position now then it was so the restore and bring it to second AfD makes sense. Benny (the original editor) writes well but with a local flavor. Not a reason to move in any direction - just saying. Peter Rehse ( talk) 13:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep I think there is enough to meet WP:BASIC NealeFamily ( talk) 23:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Weak Keep Most of the sources given are routine sports reporting. However, I do think there is just enough there to squeak by on meeting WP:GNG. Papaursa ( talk) 22:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep The article could do with a trim, and some of the sources look a bit tabloidish, but I believe there is enough sustained coverage in national sports news to be able to fix all that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy delete as entirely promotional. The question of notability does not arise--I think it very doubtful, but the article would have to be deleted in any case. DGG ( talk ) 16:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Brittany Renner

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

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

The subject has received coverage for her social media activity, however, I have a feeling she still might fail WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (sports). But, I'd like the community to examine it, too. Missvain ( talk) 19:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep I found a couple pages of results in Google news alone. It's trashy stuff (Tmz.com, etc), but her name returns many results. HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 21:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep - I'm hesitant to say delete because she is covered extensively in reliable sources but it seems her only claim to fame is through social media. Meatsgains ( talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Keep as withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 05:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Hiranandani Foundation School, Powai

Hiranandani Foundation School, Powai (  | 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 a notable topic. Fails WP:NOT. Only one source, and not a third party reliable source. Coderzombie ( talk) 18:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Actually, this meets WP:A7 as well. Should've proposed for speedy delete. Coderzombie ( talk) 18:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia ( talk) 21:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep. It's a secondary school. The intro mentions students through 10th grade, and further below there is stuff about baccalaureate certificate and testing 11th and 12th grade subjects. I usually don't vote on school AFDs, but we keep those, per wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES(?), right? It is not necessary to get independent sources to support facts which are known. Or is it really questioned whether it is a secondary school? Or has something big changed about Wikipedia coverage of schools? -- do ncr am 21:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

I was not aware of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I withdraw the proposal. Coderzombie ( talk) 13:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Speedy keep - withdrawn. Agree it meets WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 13:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per WP:SNOW, inherently non-encyclopedic content that will be irrelevant in 24 hours time. No need to keep this AfD open for purely bureaucratic reasons. Fenix down ( talk) 09:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Qualification permutations at UEFA Euro 2016

Qualification permutations at UEFA Euro 2016 (  | 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 WP:OR and created after scenarios was not allowed in articles per consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football. The article has no use and in two days all matches will be finished and there will be only tables like in main UEFA Euro 2016. Should be "speedy delete". Qed237  (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237  (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Original research and content will be outdated within a matter of days. Secret Agent Julio ( talk) 18:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Same reasoning, this article was created only because these contents were not allowed at UEFA Euro 2016 main page. The page creator may well put all that in his sandbox. The Replicator ( talk) 18:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete: as per nom. The article will become pointless in a couple of days. Kosack ( talk) 19:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete - pure OR, non-notable. Giant Snowman 20:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above. -- Edgars2007 ( talk/ contribs) 20:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete as original research that will be useless by tomorrow. Joseph2302 ( talk) 06:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete per all above. - Yellow Dingo ( talk) 07:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete will be outdated and irrelevant very soon. -- SuperJew ( talk) 08:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Moshe Weinberger

Moshe Weinberger (  | 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 seem to meet notability guidelines. He is popular, but writing one book and being a "professor" and rabbi of a synagogue doesn't seem to meet the bar for inclusion. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:BIO. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep. He is definitely notable, though you wouldn't know it from the sources on this page. I'll start working on it. Yoninah ( talk) 19:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep This is a rabbi who by his nature will be unlikely to appear in mainstream media. The article listed in Mishpacha magazine is major coverage, but the article isn't available online as the newspaper has almost no web presence in a community that doesn't use the Internet for casual purposes. The sources already in the article establish notability even with the systemic bias here. Alansohn ( talk) 19:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • The information culled from the "sources" is all WP:SYNTH. The article itself is full of WP:PEACOCK. If I could, I would blank it right now, but I'm willing to work on it. I own the Mishpacha issue and will start improving this article. Yoninah ( talk) 19:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • I'm not disagreeing about the quality of the article, all of which can be better addressed by editing than by deletion. As you have a copy of the article, do you think that the Mishpacha piece is comprehensive coverage?
      • Actually, I have a different Mishpacha article, and am trying to obtain the 2005 piece from the publisher. In the meantime, I've found plenty of other reliable sources in Google searches. Still working on it... Yoninah ( talk) 22:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
        •  Done Rewrite completed. Yoninah ( talk) 10:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment I can't believe that a Prezi presentation is given as a source, and used multiple times. There are a number of other sources that I do not think are independent: all of the links to the congregation; the Torah downloads site (which says "TorahDownloads.com is worked on by volunteers who share the Rotzon to be Marbitz Torah (spread Torah)." - thus a crowd-sourced, amateur site.) What remains may be enough for notability, but the sources need to be cleaned up by someone who knows the area. LaMona ( talk) 23:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• @ LaMona: the WP:PRIMARY source aishkodesh.org was used only twice to verify personal information, which is allowed, to my understanding. However, I have removed it as a source, along with Torah Downloads and prezi.com. The remaining sources are all independent, reliable refs. Yoninah ( talk) 14:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Withdrawing NominationI struck out my delete comment. I think at this point in time the article is sourced well enough to not be deleted. It's still a work in progress but should not be at AFD. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:55, 27 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. JohnCD ( talk) 12:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Steve Adams (illustrator)

Steve Adams (illustrator) (  | 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 illustrator. All the information comes from his own website. MSJapan ( talk) 17:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete Accomplished illustrator, but found nothing except for a few minor awards. Curiocurio ( talk) 21:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete I had prodded this earlier but another editor removed it on the basis of the awards. The biggest one mentioned is only a nomination for the Governor General's award, not the award itself. Fails WP:ARTIST. HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 21:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete non-notable illustrator. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. It's possible he's an accomplished illustrator, but as mentioned above the lack of sources makes this a larger notability/verifiability issue and lack of substantial acclaim for his work means WP:ARTIST isn't going to cut it either. ERK ^talk 04:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Non notable, fails GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:30, 29 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. JohnCD ( talk) 12:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Diamond Days (band)

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

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

Unsourced, doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG, page creator appears to be band member promoting the project, first posting attempt (speedied) was a direct rip of their LinkedIn profile. At best looks like WP:TOO SOON. JamesG5 ( talk) 17:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Sources were not found that would likely make subject notable under either GNG or the additional criteria for musicians. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete due to no evidence of notability. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 23:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. A band is not automatically entitled to keep an unsourced Wikipedia article just because they exist — reliable source coverage, verifying that they pass one or more criteria in WP:NMUSIC, must be present for an article to become earned. Bearcat ( talk) 03:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Pretty clear this one doesn't meet WP:GNG/ WP:MUSICBIO at this time. ERK ^talk 04:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Fails WP:BAND, non-notable band. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Hypocrisy (band)#Discography. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 06:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Osculum Obscenum

Osculum Obscenum (  | 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 notability criteria for recordings; see WP:NALBUM. No significant coverage and this album has not made the charts. Steve Quinn ( talk) 04:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 12:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Hypocrisy (band) § Discography as a valid search term. After searches, not finding coverage to meet WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Redirect. Per above, this is a valid search term and as such should be redirected to Hypocrisy (band) § Discography. Nothing to indicate it meets WP:NALBUM and warrants its own page. ERK ^talk 04:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 14:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Buchter News

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

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

Utterly non-notable community newspaper. Entirely unreferenced, as the newspaper web site itself is down, and the only external reference does not mention the topic. This is the only independent coverage I found, it seems to be the classical 'mention in passing'. Pgallert ( talk) 06:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  15:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete: A WP:SPA article on a monthly newspaper produced by a charity. The charity site itself has very little on this project [4] and my searches are finding nothing on Highbeam and just a couple of passing mentions via Google ( [5], [6]) which is surprising as a long-running project might be expected to have generated some evaluative coverage. In its absence, the coverage under Lüderitz#Media seems sufficient, although itself in need of referencing. AllyD ( talk) 09:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete LexisNexis has 17 hits for "Buchter News" in quotation marks. Of these 8 are false positive results (mostly about Ryan Buchter). Of the remaining 9 hits, 3 are duplicates about gap year programs (trivial mention). Two are duplicate about the newspaper reporting spotting hyenas (trivial mention), the remaining four are basic teenage highlights in local newspapers (e.g. Uttoxeter Advertiser) and provide no content about the newspaper. In other words: In Lexis, there are 9 hits and none rise above hit and run mentions. That's not notable. AbstractIllusions ( talk) 11:29, 24 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. JohnCD ( talk) 12:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Abdelwahid Habibullah

Abdelwahid Habibullah (  | 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 martial artists. Does not meet WP:MANOTE or through his book WP:NAUTHOR. This is clearly an autobiographical promo piece. Peter Rehse ( talk) 16:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 16:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete non-notable martial artist. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Per nom. Aust331 ( talk) 16:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep: per Wikipedia notability guidelines "multiple, reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article have written about that topic in some detail." Also per Basic_criteria. Altimbukti ( talk) 22:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete Neither the article nor my search turn up the significant independent coverage needed to meet WP:GNG. I also found nothing to show he meets the notability criteria for martial artists or authors. Papaursa ( talk) 22:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:MANOTE, and WP:NAUTHOR. Mdtemp ( talk) 14:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 14:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Tim Werenko

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

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

He's a video producer and New York theater actor but it's difficult to show what independent notability he has from his companies (Central Park Media, DuArt Film and 3Beep). AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 16:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 16:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 16:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 16:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 16:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 16:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete I have not been able to find any independent, reliable sources that help establish notability for the subject. Mduvekot ( talk) 16:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 16:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete This is a tough one, lots of little bits and pieces in articles, but nothing really notable. Esw01407 ( talk) 17:37, 28 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. I would recommend anyone looking to add this marathon at a later date to consider looking at List of half marathon races. KaisaL ( talk) 00:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Volcano Half Marathon

Volcano Half Marathon (  | 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. only 1 gnews hits. There is also a same named event in Hawaii LibStar ( talk) 15:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

• Merge to Half marathon, which presently has no mention of the topic. This is a functional WP:ATD-M that will improve the latter article. Does not appear to have received ample coverage to qualify for a standalone article. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete Seems to be mentioned briefly in a few news stories and in one Lonely Planet guide, but otherwise no reliable sources to verify facts with. Probably fails WP:GNG. Steven Walling •  talk 06:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Half marathon, per Northamerica1000.-- Ddcm8991 ( talk) 18:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete as there's still no other context to suggest merging and, at this point, any contents can simply be added there themselves, no need to stick a "merge" tag and hope someone will then take the time for 1 sentence. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 30 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. JohnCD ( talk) 12:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Paul Paquin

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

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

Being a state wrestling champion is not enough to show notability. I could find no record for him wrestling at Oklahoma. Junior championships are not competing at the highest level. If he'd been a collegiate champion there'd be a better case for notability, but I found nothing to show he ever even competed at the NCAA championships. Article seems promotional to me and a bunch of unsupported puffery thrown in about his business. Mdtemp ( talk) 15:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 15:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. For the reasons well-stated by the nominator. I agree that winning a state championship (or even several) is not enough to establish notability, and news searches turn up only limited local coverage insufficient to make a case for WP:GNG notability. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 16:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete non-notable businessman who excelled in wrestling in high school competition, but that does not make one notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete, per others. Daniel Case ( talk) 20:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete Being a two time state high school wrestling champion is insufficient to show notability and the part of the article that describes his business appears to be promotional in nature. WP:GNG is not met. Papaursa ( talk) 22:51, 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. JohnCD ( talk) 12:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Kin tae kwon do

Kin tae kwon do (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Individual martial arts school with no significant independent coverage. Notability is not obtained from who the school's instructors' instructors were, nor generic martial arts claims. Nothing to show this meets WP:MANOTE or WP:GNG. Seems like the article's purpose was to promote the school and that's not what WP is for. Mdtemp ( talk) 15:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 15:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete As per nominator - this is a single school advert. Take out the general statements about taekwondo and their references and there is not much there. Peter Rehse ( talk) 15:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete, as not notable outside possibly a local area and then as a business; agree that it reads like a promotion piece. Kierzek ( talk) 19:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG. The secondary sources provided are not suitable. Steven Walling •  talk 06:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame ( talk) 08:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Revise More reliable sources is needed.
• Delete Article is about a single non-notable school. Neither WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE are met. Papaursa ( talk) 23:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Non notable school. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:23, 29 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. JohnCD ( talk) 12:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Jonathan Meunier

Jonathan Meunier (  | 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. Just had his first top tier fight and lost it. Assuming he'll get 3 top tier fights is WP:CRYSTALBALL. Lacks the significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Article was created WP:TOOSOON, but no objections to having this article saved to user space until he becomes notable. Mdtemp ( talk) 15:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 15:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete As per nominator. Peter Rehse ( talk) 15:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete non-notable MMA fighter. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete Article was created WP:TOOSOON. Fails the MMA notability criteria at WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. Papaursa ( talk) 22:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Not notable MMA fighter, fails NMMA. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Keep per no calls for deletion beyond the nominator, unanimous consensus from the editors in this discussion and considerable editing improvements to the article since the AfD was begun. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended ( talk) 13:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Eastern Parkway Arena

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

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

Topic has a passing mention in one article and no indication of notability. Being a venue where boxing took place is not enough to show notability. Fails WP:GNG. Mdtemp ( talk) 15:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• The links above reveal quite a lot of potential sources. This looks to be a good source, as does this, this and this. So, it's a keep for me. Cordless Larry ( talk) 16:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • It would be helpful if someone could track down a copy of this, too. Cordless Larry ( talk) 17:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep. This was a notable boxing locale in the early 1950s, [7] with its own network TV shows on Dumont and ABC. [8] Floyd Patterson fought there. [9] Here's an AP article about its closure in 1955. [10] -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 17:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment It certainly looks like a better case can be made than the throw-away stub suggests (sympathy for the nominator). I understand that articles can be allowed to grow but passing mentions that boxing matches occurred there and that the place shut (even if they are added to the article) won't do much. The fact that it had its own network if properly referenced I think would. Peter Rehse ( talk) 17:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep Improved version makes the case (although the show and the place could easily be a single article). Kudos to Arxiloxos. Peter Rehse ( talk) 17:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep Article now appears to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa ( talk) 23:22, 23 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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 16:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Bianca Brigitte Van Damme

Bianca Brigitte Van Damme (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Like her brother (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristopher Van Varenberg), there is no indication of notability. All of the movies she's been involved in have been her father's. There's a lack of significant coverage of her to show she meets WP:GNG or any other notability criteria. Mdtemp ( talk) 14:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete non-notable actress. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete - There is no significant independent coverage of her. Fails WP:GNG as stated by nom. - AuthorAuthor ( talk) 15:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 12:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Ng Ga Kuen

Ng Ga Kuen (  | 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 martial arts style. The article has no sources and my search found no significant independent coverage. There are schools that teach it, but nothing to show it meets WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE. Existing doesn't make it notable. Mdtemp ( talk) 14:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 15:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete Article is a bit disengious - it almost reads as if this art is an umbrella term for the five animal styles but when one reads carefully its a new style made up from the different styles. There is little in the unsourced article that speaks to notability. Peter Rehse ( talk) 15:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete Unsourced article with no indication of notability. My search found nothing to show it meets WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE. Papaursa ( talk) 22:46, 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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 12:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Jordan Hare (actor)

Jordan Hare (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)

Possibly a case of too soon and failed WP:MUSICBIO. The actor has done only 2 films so far and I fail to find any reliable independent sources to support notability. Thank You – GSS ( talk) 14:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 14:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 14:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete non-notable actor. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• comment more information is required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuuuu1000 ( talk • contribs) 07:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• delete not notable yet. Jytdog ( talk) 14:50, 23 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 restore to userspace at User:Gregorytopov/Stanley Random Chess per section B4 of WP:UP/RFC2016. JohnCD ( talk) 21:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Stanley Random Chess

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

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

This is a joke chess variant implemented on a single chess web server where half of the player's moves are automatically rejected at random with funny messages, but players joke about these funny messages being real rules. This article and its unreliable sources all appear to have been written in this same style ("fewer legal moves than traditional chess", "rules are too complex to summarize"). The edit history alleges that "Gregory Topov" is a fictional character. I can't find any secondary sources that have written about the game for what it is.

The article was AfD'd in 2006 and userfied, and later blanked. The userfied page was put up for MfD by User:Legacypac in February 2016 on the grounds that it was now a blanked hoax with possible copyvio text in the history, but when the MfD was closed as keep, Legacypac unblanked it and brought it back to primetime explaining "This survived MfD so should be moved back into mainspace" McGeddon ( talk) 13:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Note to closer - "This survived MfD" ≠ "so should be moved back into mainspace". If it is found unsuitable for the mainspace, community consensus at Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring (specifically WP:UP/RFC2016#B4), which is now codified at WP:STALEDRAFT, states it should be restored to User:Gregorytopov/Stanley Random Chess.— Godsy^{( TALK} _CONT) 16:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete (restore to Userspace) -- This is a hoax. The article text suggests that it WAS a hoax, but is now real... okay, I can buy that an online server installed this "variant" as a joke, but... it's not notable. There's no reliable sources that discuss it. Failing WP:GNG, it does not belong in mainspace. Go ahead and put it back into userspace where it belongs. Fieari ( talk) 05:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 12:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Greg Sayers

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

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

Local politician, member of the council of a suburb of Auckland (not the Auckland Council itself as the text might suggest). References are to primary sources, sometimes not even mentioning Sayers (like this one), to very minor local outlets, to non-independent sources, or to non-RS sources like Facebook and WP. There's one reference to the New Zealand Herald, but Sayers only gets an in-passing mention there. His most notable feat seems to be that he pissed off some people by pushing for limiting access of dogs to some local beaches and parks. Apart from the "controversies" section (inserted by an IP), article is also written in a rather promotional way (albeit not enough for G11). Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN, WP:NBIO, or WP:GNG. Randykitty ( talk) 13:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Not notable beyond local politics and even that is not substantial. Further, the "article" reads like a promo piece. Kierzek ( talk) 14:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Randykitty ( talk) 14:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Randykitty ( talk) 14:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Local politician lacking significantly notability Meatsgains ( talk) 15:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep Greg Sayers is well known as a politician in New Zealands largest city where I live 222.153.158.125 ( talk) 21:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC) — 222.153.158.125 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
• Keep Mr Sayers is a popular and well known public figure in the Hibiscus Coast and Rodney Area . 121.99.231.108 ( talk) 01:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC) — 121.99.231.108 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
• Keep This politician does meet the WP:POLITICIAN, WP:NBIO, and WP:GNG criteria to not warrant deletion in a variety of ways. The page is created using impartial and factual sources, which are accurately referenced. He is a major political figure who meets the primary notability criterion from many sources. Auckland Council is unique in that its wards are larger in area and population than electorates for central government. This politician holds dual office over an area much larger than an electorate. His regular news coverage is of public interest and the existence of this page achieves the aims of Wikipedia. It is not a WP:SOAPBOX. I have also noted that some contributors to the Auckland Council page have added material, including controversies associated with this politician. This businessman is also notable for his previous achievements and family background. Zorbing is as significant to New Zealand culture as bungee jumping. Greg has continued the legacy of his famous father, Alan Sayers, whose achievements are also noteworthy.-- TheBlackandSilver ( talk) 02:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC) — TheBlackandSilver ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

• Comment: TheBlackandSilver, can you do me a favor and please read WP:SOCK? Thanks! -- Randykitty ( talk) 07:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I see that "zorbing" is notable, yes. Since notability is not inherited, how does being chairman of the company making the things, or being a son of one of the founders, pass Wikipedia notability standards? Ravenswing 12:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• As noted in the nomination, he's not on the Auckland Council — he's on the "borough" council of one individual district within the region-wide government, but not on the region-wide body itself. Bearcat ( talk) 16:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete non-notable member of a sub-urban council. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment This article reads as though it was written by someone with a COI. Appears to pass SIGCOV but most mentions are local news passing mentions as typically expected for a politician. Not convinced he passes WP:NPOLITICIAN. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{( Talk Contribs)} 04:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Was chairman of Zorb which is pretty notable ish by NZ standards. But much more significantly is he has not just been elected to local council board, but also re-elected again, and got elected to a second position at the same time!!! Which was quite controversial and got a fair amount of attention for doing so at the time (even incredibly leading a proposed bill in parliament to abolish this!). Mathmo ^Talk 09:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Is a notable political figure. Am well convinced the article passes all the criteria for WP:POLITICIAN, WP:NBIO, and WP:GNG. 222.153.158.125 ( talk) 10:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC) — 222.153.158.125 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
• Delete: Ah, yes, the usual horde of sockpuppets voting Keep. I would wonder why these puppet masters go to so very much trouble to manufacture fake accounts and haul in varying IP addresses when they could devote their efforts instead to providing the slightest bit of evidence proving the notability of the subjects. Oh, wait. It's that they know they've got nothing, only meekly admitting defeat would be symbolically castrating, or some such. Anyway, obvious failure of WP:POLITICIAN, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 12:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply

The edit history of all IPs are either to this AfD or Sayers' page. Pretty obvious what's going on here. Meatsgains ( talk)

Ravenswing, you shouldn't overstate what is going on here in this AfD. The Keep voices are: myself (an editor on Wikipedia for a very long time), TheBlackandSilver (an account created last year, and has a small handful of edits on other pages as well. So I certainly wouldn't go so far as to call this a single purpose sockpuppet account), and two random IP addresses. Hardly what I'd call a "horde" of sockpuppets like you did, neither is there any evidence at all that there are puppet masters creating fake accounts like you claimed. As there appears to be zero fake accounts created for this AfD, not even one. Mathmo ^Talk 16:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply

I don't consider a bunch of anon IP keeps, led by an account with all of ten non-Greg Sayers edits (and all of those over a year ago), to be overstating a thing. The only legit Keep vote is yours, and that's offset by five Delete advocates, including the nom. Obvious socking is obvious. Ravenswing 19:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I have Edited in references 11 and 12 about Mr Sayers as this string seems to missing his political sphere of influance. This politician does meet the WP:POLITICIAN protocols because the largest newspaper in New Zealand reports on him and he negotiates with the country's Prime Minister which also gets reported. See the tags ( currently 11 &12 ) to Penlink Bridge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.48.173 ( talk) 08:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC) — 118.93.48.173 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

• Comment: "Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." That is the standard a politician needs to pass with press coverage. Where are those sources, please? Ravenswing 12:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Being a local councillor in a suburb is not an automatic WP:NPOL freebie (and neither is getting reelected to a second term), being chairman of a company (even a notable/famous company) is not an automatic pass over our inclusion rules for businesspeople if the sourcing for it isn't particularly strong, and the sourcing here is far too reliant on primary sources and social media posts, with not even close to enough reliable source coverage to meet WP:GNG. None of this, neither the sourcing nor the substance, is enough — and articles which need a swarm of sockpuppets to come Defend Their Ramparts! always get an automatic side-eye. Bearcat ( talk) 15:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I've had a look through the sources and this person fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Schwede 66 19:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 12:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Mobidea

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

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

Seems to be an advert for an MLM scam, referenced to its own publications Maproom ( talk) 11:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

João - Mobidea

I've noticed that the page I've just created was marked for "deletion" even though it already has a number of credible sources pointing to it. This page is not an attempt to advertise for an MLM scam.

How should I proceed without risking to make my actions ultimately contribute to the removal of this page?

Best, João Joaofgaguiar ( talk) 11:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete - so many references but so little content. I cannot fathom whether this is a scam or not. I am not even sure whether it is written in English or in some sort of marketing business gabble, but whatever it is it has no references that show that it has any notability. The refs seems to be advertisements or directory listing but nothing at all substantial. Since there is so little assertion of notability, this might have been a speedy delete as a non notable company (I think?)   Velella   ^{Velella Talk}   20:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello Vellela,

I see the point. I will try to emphasize the content. Thanks for your words! Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joaofgaguiar ( talk • contribs) 21:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete - References are insufficient. There are plenty of them in terms of numbers, but they are either not independent (paid adverts, press releases, etc) or they are not in depth articles in reliable sources. - MrOllie ( talk) 16:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete; clearly fails WP:CORP, and no extensive coverage in independent nor reliable sources is available. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 12:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Network for a New Culture

Network for a New Culture (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

I see no reliable sources in the articles, and Google News shows no newspaper coverage, not even mere announcements of events. either press releases (though I would expect some announcements might be found in a more thorough search) ,. Having a few notable speakers is not evidence of notability DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 04:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. This is an odd one -- the organization's web site tells us that it isn't actually an organization (it's more of an "inspiration"). I tried to get some notion of notability by looking at the external links (there are no references in the article), and found that those that weren't dead links didn't really discuss the organization(?) itself. Instead, they were just blogs from individuals who related their experience at the organization's camps. I just don't see any notability here. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 23:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep It looks like there should be a general article about the movement as a whole. See here for example. Aoziwe ( talk) 15:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete at best as I've been watching this and, at this time, my searches have found nothing better and there's nothing else minimally convincing from the article. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Copied from the talk page

  A check on this group tells me that it clearly doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines, so I've tagged it for deletion. You can remove the tag if you want, but it that case it will just go to WP:AFD, in which case it will most likely be deleted anyway. That is, unless you can show that the group meets our notability guidelines. Herostratus 21:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC) reply I respectfully think we (NFNC) might qualify as notable. I have added some of the speakers who have presented - many who have internal wikipedia links. I have not yet removed the warning, hoping that soem of the NFNC folx will see the specific instructions in the warning and help copy edit and add content. Thanks for your patience and assistance in keeping wikipedia accurate and relavant. Paxuscalta 18:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC) reply I removed the deletion tag, because it's a time bomb - 5 days with the tag and the article is automatically deleted. And it's intended that the tag (the ProD tag) be removed if any one persons objects. The alternative would be to send the article to WP:AFD, where it can be be discussed by the community at large for seven days. I'm mulling whether to do that or not. Herostratus 07:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply Dearest Herostratus: Thank you for pulling the time bomb tag, i am not sure best how to deal with this situation, so your assistance like this is appreciated. it also makes me feel a bit less frantic in dealing with this. i may have also made the problem of your verification a bit worse by actually misnaming the group. I have listed it as "Network for New Culture" which is what i have always called it. The proper name is "Network for A New Culture". so verifying us with search engine searches on the group (especailly if the entire name is in quotes) MAY have missed articles about us. Another member of NFNC has read the criteria for group inclusion in wikipedia and believes that it is based on two or more non-trivial articles about the group being published. He has done some searching and found the following: (i quote from his msg - having "wikiafied" the links for easy access): “The Little Community That Could” This is an article that was written by Geoph Kozeny, and was published in New ConneXion in May 2000 New ConneXion article So now we have three articles that were published in print magazines or newspapers, and one of them was picked up by another magazine and reprinted. "The Heart Holds the Power" This is an article written by Teryani Riggs, which was published in Talking Leaves, a print magazine, in the Winter 1999 issue: Heart Holds the Power article That same article was published in New ConneXion in July 1999 reprint New ConneXion is a print journal: “For 14 years New ConneXion has been a leading voice for the new consciousness in the Pacific Northwest . Six times a year 35,000-40,000 free copies are picked up at over 600 health food stores, bookshops, restaurants and cafes, libraries, health centers, universities, shops and street boxes in Portland and throughout Oregon and Washington . The journal reaches over 80,000 readers in print, and our website is getting a million hits a month.” Here are some links to articles on NFNC, drawn from a google search for: NFNC “New Culture” Intentional Communities Directory: Listing & description Both printed and on-line Newspaper article! Washington Spark – June 25, 2005 – p24 Online Review: Firetender.org Talk given at SC95, by Sten Linnander; published by sexuality.org (end of quoted msg) If you think this article should be moved to the WP:AFD for discussion by the greater wikipedia community, we will certainly defer to your judgement - we are novices in this and dont want to run over any of the appropriate protocols or be seen as trying to push our way in. We have already discussed that if the article is deleted, we would copy the final version and await several articles which have been written for submission to larger subscription periodicals and if they are printed, then we would resubmit with additional recognition. Should i be adding these above articles to the "External Links" section ? Thank you again for yor guidance in this. Paxuscalta 13:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply I moved the article to the correct name. No, I'm not going to send it to WP:AFD, although another editor might. But if you put your references you cited here into the body of the article, you should be OK. Just put them in the External links section. If you want to use footnotes, where individual statements link to a particular source(s), see Wikipedia:Footnotes. Cheers, Herostratus 14:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply Thanks for moving the article. i actually need to do this for the Nuclear information and resource service article i edited, which which got saved as lower case for most of the groups organization ame and should be capitaized - can you direct me to hos this is done ? i know ho to create a new article, but how do i redirect existing links to the old one ? As you suggested, i added the articles in a new section under External Links. We are of course happy you dont feel the need to send us to WP:AFD. Your help is appreciated. Paxuscalta 13:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply

  Cunard ( talk) 00:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Rios, Melanie; Rios, Michael; Taub, Sarah; Diehl, Pati (2009-03-07). "Network for a New Culture Camps". Communities. No. 142. Archived from the original on 2016-06-20. Retrieved 2016-06-20.

     The article notes:

     At Network for a New Culture (NFNC) camps, currently located in Oregon, West Virginia, and Hawaii, adults come together to learn about and practice ways of living together different from the norms of mainstream culture, experimenting with new ways of relating to themselves, to their work, to others, and to the world. Workshops and other activities encourage participants to explore intimacy, freedom, and radical personal responsibility, with the goal of fostering the personal empowerment and emotional resilience that would allow a cooperative, nonviolent culture to emerge. The strong relationships that form at camp create the basis for a vibrant community all year long.

  2. Kozeny, Geoph (May 2000). "The Little Community That Could". Journal of Conscious Living. New Connexion. Archived from the original on 2002-03-04. Retrieved 2016-06-20.

     The article notes:

     "I think I can! I think I can!"Most of us remember the kids' story about the little train trying to go up a huge, steep hill. The moral was that we can succeed at a seemingly impossible task if only (a) we believe that we can do it, and (b) we have the determination to follow through until the goal is reached. Well, that was the lesson I learned all over again at last August's "Summer Camp," held near Portland, Oregon and sponsored by the Network For a New Culture (NFNC).

     NFNC was originally inspired by ZEGG, a 19-year-old German community based on scientific research, personal growth, healing, free sexuality, and the development of a new culture. The North American network has, however, developed a focus and a culture of its own, emphasizing a multi-pronged approach that includes personal growth, communication skills, open sexuality, and building community, although the culture they're evolving is not yet a "textbook" process.

  3. The Washington Spark newspaper article mentioned by Paxuscalta ( talk · contribs) in 2006 on the talk page (and in the collapsed text above) is a dead link.
  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Network for a New Culture to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard ( talk) 00:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Well, couple things. First, DGG is remarkably inclusionistic, and so it he thinks the article should go, that's something that I respect. Second, when we're looking for coverage, we're looking for notable organs... articles in (let's say) the LA Times or Der Spiegel etc. would be nice, but we can't always get that, and so settle for the the Harrisburg Patriot-News or Fresno Bee or so forth. But New Culture, what is that? What is the Journal of Conscious Living and the Washington Spark? Sure we consider some specialist organs to be notable, but none of these have Wikipedia articles, and that makes me wonder how notable the are. The WP:N guideline is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to which I always add "and do not have a readership of, like, just 3 people and squirrel". Anybody can create an on-line magazine, you don't even need a mimeo machine anymore. I'm not feeling positive about those sources as being sufficiently notable to confer notability on the subject. Herostratus ( talk) 06:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Just not notable enough in the end. Passing interest mentions; not significant coverage in notable "organs" as noted above. Kierzek ( talk) 14:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment. Hello, Cunard. Thanks for the cites. Only three this time? :) The first cite (the article about the camps) is one of the ones I referred to in my earlier posting re: blogs about an individual's experience at a camp. But the second one was new. However, it was written by a member of the Network (Geoph Kozeny, now deceased), as can be seen here. So, it can't be used to establish notability. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 15:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Yes, only three citations this time because I was unable to find more coverage about the subject. :) Based on your observation that the first article is not an independent source and and Herostratus' observation that the other two sources are very small publications, I am switching to delete. Cunard ( talk) 05:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete Switching from "keep" to "delete" per Herostratus' and NewYorkActuary's comments. Cunard ( talk) 05:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 12:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Attilio Speciani

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

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

No evidence of any notability. Reads more like an advertisement. All the refs are his own published works. Nothing here suggests any notability.   Velella   ^{Velella Talk}   09:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Reads like a CV and don't see any lasting substantial notability. Kierzek ( talk) 14:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The article is written in a way which looks promotional. It appears to be a direct translation from an Italian wikipedia article where it is also the subject of an Articles for Deletion discussion. Although this person has several publications to his name, I can't see that he passes WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. I had a look for independent coverage in reliable English-language sources but couldn't find anything. Notability hasn't been established. Drchriswilliams ( talk) 11:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete; appears to be a direct translation of its Italian counterpart, which is itself being discussed for deletion. Fails WP:PROF quite clearly (a hadful of citations, no important posts, etc.), not to mention WP:GNG. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 12:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

2021 ICC World Test Championship

2021 ICC World Test Championship (  | 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:CRYSTAL. Created by a user who has a history of adding unsourced articles. The 2013 and 2017 editions that were scheduled have both been cancelled with no indication that the tournament will continue/ever happen at all. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. It has not even happened and there is no indication of why this is notable at this time. I would not even rate it a stub in its current form. Kierzek ( talk) 14:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. No evidence that tournament exists or will exist. Page layout is a mess also. ( Ajf773 ( talk) 23:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)) reply
• Delete. I am glad that articles for championships between 2023 to 2050 were not created. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 06:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

EMO the Musical

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

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

Unreleased film ... wikipedia as promotionl platform. Fails GNG. Beware false positives for an American musical with the same name. See also Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#EMO_the_Musical -- Tagishsimon (talk) 08:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC) Tagishsimon (talk) 08:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Draftify. I would say userfy but the creator has been blocked. Draft could be useful after the film releases; no need to waste the info. Softlavender ( talk) 08:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia ( talk) 21:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia ( talk) 21:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep. It's not just some blocked editor's work. At the COI proceeding, Tokyogirl79 reports:

  *OK, I've worked on the article. It looks like this releases in August so I'd recommend just sitting on this for now. The coverage is light but slightly enough to where it could pass WP:NFF if we wanted to be especially charitable. If it releases in August and gains no coverage then I'd suggest maybe nominating it or at the very least changing it to refer to the short film rather than the feature film.

The article should be a combo article about both the short film and the feature. I will revise it slightly in the lede. And the feature's principal filming is done, and the article is factual and sourced. -- do ncr am 03:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Doncram's improvements. Softlavender ( talk) 05:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep the article has undergone significant improvements and referencing since its nomination. It now clearly satisfies WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Dan arndt ( talk) 07:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Niagara Public School

Niagara Public 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)

Previous AfD closed as no consensus, but only on the borderline. None of the sources cited in the article provide significant coverage of this former school building. The article contains original research that attempts to make a link between the notability of the building and that of the area it is located in. Though sources were promised, they have not been forthcoming. Cordless Larry ( talk) 08:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia ( talk) 14:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia ( talk) 14:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry ( talk) 14:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep. IMO this 2nd AFD should not have been started without someone first obtaining the Canadian historic sites organization's documentation about the historic district, which probably covers this building quite sufficiently to satisfy anyone. The deletion nominator and I participated in the previous AFD as well as a simultaneous NOR noticeboard Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_36#Niagara_Public_School. As covered in the first AFD:

• It is a historic building that is old enough and interesting enough to have substantial coverage, including it being subject of at least one published painting.
• It is included in a historic district, and it is reasonable to believe it is the equivalent of a contributing building in a U.S. historic district listed on the National Register of Historic Places. We have numerous articles about buildings that are contributing properties in U.S. historic districts.
• Characteristics of the building are consistent with the stated themes of the historic district, including that (from memory)

• the area of the historic district extends in from the Niagara waterfront to include the block that the school is on, and not facing buildings across the street, as if the school is targeted
• the historic district focuses on two-story five-bay masonry structures dating from a certain period (1815-1859), like the school, built in 1859. The stated period itself seems to me like it may have been extended to include the school, which was built later than other buildings closer to the waterfront.
• the historic district focuses on properties that are well-preserved, and that exemplify the activity of historic preservation itself

• It is reasonable to expect that specifics on this building are included in the Canadian historic sites organization's nomination documentation about the historic district. During the 1st AFD I made a request (perhaps both by telephone message and by email?) for copy of the documentation, but I did not in fact receive any reply, and I do not know if the Canadian historic sites organization offers the service of providing copies. Libraries in Niagara are another likely source for copy of that material.

We "Keep" articles where we believe there exist substantial reliable sources covering the topic, whether or not we have those sources in hand. If the document had been obtained and it turned out the school was not regarded as significant, then a second AFD might be justified, but that has not happened. I am willing to try harder to obtain a copy of the documentation myself, but that could have been suggested at the Talk page of the article. wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP.

-- do ncr am 19:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• I did ask on the article talk page, Doncram. There was no reply. You apparently requested these documents months ago, but they haven't been forthcoming. The article is more than four years old. At some point, we needed to reassess whether the sources establishing notability exist. Cordless Larry ( talk) 19:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • The deletion nomination exemplifies WP:IMPATIENT, one of the defined reasons to avoid during deletion discussions. In several back-and-forths I responded fully at Talk:Niagara Public School about seeking the documents. I expect I can get the documentation sometime in person in Niagara-on-the-Lake or in Gatineau, when I will be in one of those areas, but that is not required. We know well enough that the school is notable and offline sources exist: that is enough to end this AFD by "Speedy Keep", frankly. I know well enough, even if you don't, that the documentation covers the school. The discussion at Talk is getting close to simply whining that the obviously helpful documentation has not been obtained and used. Well you could have gotten it yourself, and wp:THEREISNODEADLINE. I will respond less to further comments. -- do ncr am 21:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • You responded only after I started this AfD! If four years is being impatient, then how long should I wait for sources? Cordless Larry ( talk) 21:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
      • @ Cordless Larry and Doncram: I see no need to "get the documents". The school is included in the historic district as the reference says. The ref is published by the "Canada's Historic Places" web site, which is jointly published by the Federal, Provincial and Territorial governments of Canada. The top two levels of government in Canada agree that this is an historic building, and I think we should too. HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 03:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
        • HappyValleyEditor, are you talking about this source? I can't see the school mentioned there and would appreciate clarification. Cordless Larry ( talk) 07:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
          • Yes. The school is within the historic district, so it gets inherited notability. I know you ar eprobably going to say no to that, but think of Angkor Wat, for example. It's a World heritage site/district. Everything inside it is notable. HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 07:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
            • OK, thanks, HappyValleyEditor. Yes, I am guided by WP:NOTINHERITED here and think that the building itself needs to be notable - otherwise being part of a district could be an argument for having articles on buildings for which zero sources exist. I respect your opinion, though, and at least there is some coverage in this case. Cordless Larry ( talk) 07:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep I added two decent book sources that mention it in terms of its historic value. I also found another ref for Janet Carnochan, the first principal and added that. (Note that in doing so, I spotted and removed some copyvio that was added in March as it perfectly matches the "come, Bright Improvement" ref). All in all, there are decent sources for something this old, which together establish notability. There does seem to be a bit of WP:OR and possible COPYVIO, but that's not a reason to delete an interesting and notable article, but rather a reason for cleanup. I like the painting as a reference-- it's a clear and notable historical reference to the school in visual form. HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 02:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep - The article now has adequate sources. I am not qualified to judge the significance of the building. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep - appears to be properly sourced. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 01:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep The Brancliff Inn, which the school was converted to, has gotten a smattering of coverage in tour books such as this one: [11]. It also placed 6th in Trivago’s Top 10 Canadian Hotels list in 2016, which got coverage by a few sources: [12] [13]. This is far from the best-sourced article I've ever seen, but I think the various sources that have been found are enough to establish notability. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 06:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 12:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Maruful Islam Jhalak

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

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

Speedied once A7. No indication of notability per WP:BIO, with no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. All of the references cited are about things he works with, or about his family, rather than him, and WP:Notability is not inherited. OnionRing ( talk) 07:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. OnionRing ( talk) 07:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce ( talk) 17:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Strong Delete per nomination. No WP:RS; like as issuu, YouTube and Facebook link has been used as references! ~ Moheen ^(talk) 12:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Fails GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  05:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply

The Flappy Bird Effect

The Flappy Bird Effect (  | 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 be unsourced WP:OR, searching for sources produce a few articles with this in title but they are covering different topics. JamesG5 ( talk) 07:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete Completely unsourced. Appears to be made up. Steven Walling •  talk 06:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. The company has also been deleted in an earlier AFD close. KaisaL ( talk) 00:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Mukund B.S.

Mukund B.S. (  | 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 businessman per WP:BIO. Most of the article is a promo for his company, which was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ReNewIT for notability and blatant promo, and nearly all of the references are about the company, rather than him, with some not mentioning him at all. No significant coverage online from WP:RS. OnionRing ( talk) 07:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. OnionRing ( talk) 07:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. OnionRing ( talk) 07:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete yet another article on a non-notable businessman. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:37, 22 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. Neither of the two reasons given for keeping relate to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. They are (1) the bare statement "notability has been established" without explanation or evidence; see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Assertion of notability, and (2) "Just because he hasn't been notable since 2011 doesn't mean he never existed"; see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Existence. The arguments for "delete" are not the strongest I have ever seen, but they are based on issues related to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, namely notability and promotion. (Note: Several of the images are certainly copyright infringements, and it is probably true that all of them are, as LM2000 says, but that is not a reason to delete the article: it is just a reason to remove the images from the article.) The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 12:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Jacob Novak (wrestler)

Jacob Novak (wrestler) (  | 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 real Notability since 2011, can find no further info about him online since 2011. I can find no way to improve this article.It has also already been tagged per WP:BIO due to notability issues already. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ( talk) 06:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 09:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep Article currently reads like an advert and needs work, but notability has been established albeit there is little to nothing since 2011. Aust331 ( talk) 09:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep Just because he hasn't been notable since 2011 doesn't mean he never existed, if that was the case then we could delete Sim Snuka's article as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:5644:600:8D68:233B:4F1E:7234 ( talk) 05:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply

— 2605:6000:5644:600:8D68:233B:4F1E:7234 has made few or no other edits outside this topic. LM2000 ( talk) 06:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Comparing Novak to Snuka is like comparing apples to oranges. Sim has Notability due to being a Second gen wrestler alone,plus he actually made it to the main roster. No comparison. ALOT of guys existed but ALOT of them do not qualify for WP:BIO notability, that is what matters not if he existed or not Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ( talk) 06:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Then what about Lucky Cannon and Percy Watson, they never made it to the main roster and haven't been notable since their release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:5644:600:F478:BDEB:F930:5BE6 ( talk) 20:23, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete Article has been deleted before under a different name, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Novak. He hasn't done anything since the previous AfD which would change WP:GNG concerns. The article reads like an advert and all of the pics are copy-vios. LM2000 ( talk) 06:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete - the epitome of someone with no success on WWE television, eliminated first in both season 4 and season 5. Didn't make it to WWE main roster (raw/smackdown). Also echoing LM2000's concerns starship .paint ~ KO 06:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above. Prefall 08:21, 23 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.