The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Kausakaadi Santati (  | 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 can find no evidence whatsoever that either this book or its author exist. The information in this article has also been put here by the author. Google Web, News, and Books return only these two articles. Adam9007 ( talk) 23:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I couldn't find anything through the India WP's search engine. I don't think that this is a hoax, more that this was likely a book that received a small publication in India and was never popular enough for anyone to write about it. There are a lot of books in India with similar tales, where they were published and fell into obscurity before the Internet became a thing (and even then there are books that are somewhat known that aren't mentioned on the Internet). In any case, this is a fairly clear delete. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - I agree and my searches found nothing better. For future creation, I suggest emphasizing better sources. SwisterTwister talk 18:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - I was unable to find information in reliable sources verifying this article. Jujutacular ( talk) 17:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Speedy delete WP:G10. The article had a source for some info but it did not verify all the accusations in the article.. --  GB  fan 10:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Salim Mehajer (  | 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 negative poorly sourced BLP MopSeeker Fox Three! 23:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 23:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 23:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

WP:NOTESSAY, WP:OR: this article appears well-sourced but actually takes a few books and opinion pieces and crafts an original synthesis of ideas that appear in them. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 20:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Non-Dropframe _talk 20:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Non-Dropframe _talk 20:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Non-Dropframe _talk 20:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete This article is original research that advances an argument, rather than covering a notable topic in a neutral fashion. I do not believe that the topic itself is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Article looks to be an original research SYNTHESIS. Egsan Bacon ( talk) 19:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• """move?""" should some of the content then be moved epochalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpktpk ( talk • contribs) 17:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep While I agree with above comments -- the article was a WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR, there are references suggesting the concept is an important one in thinking about a highly important subject -- The Internet -- and references to back this up. So hopefully problems with neutrality have been fixed as per WP:HEYMANN, with sufficient references.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 22:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete it's a WP:NEOLOGISM coined by Morozov, and this article discusses the concept imagined by him and some reactions/book reviews. It remains WP:SYNTHESIS, and Wikipedia is not a free host for personal essays. Kraxler ( talk) 15:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• 'Delete - Original essay, plain and simple. Why was this held over? Carrite ( talk) 02:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - even given the improvements, the article is still essentially original research and the term is not notable. Jujutacular ( talk) 17:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Delete. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

Non notable software. Inadequate citations. Paid editor. Prev. article was non-consensus because almost nobody commented. We need to pay attention to getting rid of articles like this. DGG ( talk ) 21:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Maybe delete as my searches found nothing better than the current sources. Inviting @ MrX and BeenAroundAWhile: for comment. SwisterTwister talk 22:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - The subject fails WP:GNG for lack of available, independent sources.- Mr X 23:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - per nomination. I was unable to find adequate coverage in reliable sources to warrant an article. Jujutacular ( talk) 17:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 01:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

Zero improvement over the material that was deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atul Kumar (2nd nomination). The article was recreated so many times in failing form that the title had to be salted. DMacks ( talk) 21:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• keep The original submission may have not been much better, but I rewrote it completely. I removed the 90% of the article which was unclear or over-extended or puffery. Clear notability: highest citations, 190, 95, in two of the major journals in the field, . This kind of citation record is notable in any subject. I unsalted the title because I fixed the problem. That bad prior articles were written doesn't mean that the present article is equally bad. I do not agree with the principle that we punish the subject for having written a bad article about themselves In past years, I would routinely rewrite any low quality article on a notable academic, and in many other fields s also. I do much less of this now, because of the need to deal with the flood of promotionalism, but when there's a chance to easily fix something that's worth fixing, I still do it if it's quick enough. DGG ( talk ) 21:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

I can't find support for the number-of-citations claims (the only cited novel claim beyond those in the previous articles)...the ref is to Google Scholar for this person's name starting after hit #10 of the results. How does one determine which of the "about 14,600 hits" are ones that cite two specific papers? DMacks ( talk) 21:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Yes, Google Scholar can be less than helpful! (But you can click around a bit in papers to get a feel for which ones are his and what the field is like.) In Google Scholar search for "Atul Kumar Central Drug Research Institute", then in the papers that come up click on the links of the two of his students (S Sharma, RA Maurya) who have Google Scholar profiles. Those papers come up in citation order, so you can see the top ones. StarryGrandma ( talk) 04:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply

He does have his own profile as "Dr Atul Kumar". I put that url in the Google Scholar reference in the article. StarryGrandma ( talk) 06:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Thanks to the Google Scholar reference. -- TTTommy111 ( talk) 06:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep per WP:HEY (although actually the cleanups were a few minutes before the AfD was started) and WP:PROF#C1. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep Kudos to DGG for doing the heavy lifting. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 19:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Delete. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Baresip (  | 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 the WP:GNG - appears to be relatively new software with little or no coverage. Mdann52 ( talk) 21:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. At the moment, there does not appear to be any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Most existing at the moment are passing mentions or support threads. It does not come close to satisfying the criteria in WP:NSOFTWARE, since there is no evidence available which suggests that it is somehow especially significant or has been the subject of manuals, books, or reviews. -- Biblioworm (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• This is a very nice program, and it definitely should have an article on Wikipedia one day, but not before there are sources to base such article upon. So delete per WP:GNG. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk• track) 22:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete for now as my searches found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Delete both. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

Igor Todorovski (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

NES emulator, fails to establish notability, no third-party references. Google search for the name of software mostly returns copies of the Wikipedia article. The project's subversion repository has not been updated since the year 2007. [1] - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 21:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Also nominating article about Igor Todorovski, a "legendary" developer who apparently became "famous" for co-authoring this software. [2] - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 21:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete both the article on the software and the developer. There's a complete absence of meaningful coverage. If by some miracle the article on the software survives, the one about the dev should be redirected. Pichpich ( talk) 22:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. ( ?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. Not even worth redirecting it to the list of emulators as there are no sources. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ ping}} me. –  czar 23:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete both articles as they are not sourced by reliable sources. Ana r chyte 12:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Edit: CSD A7 may even apply to the article about Igor Todorovski. Ana r chyte 12:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - these emulator article's rarely seem to have the coverage needed to meet the GNG. Delete the one sentence, zero sourced "article" about its creator, Igor. Sergecross73 msg me 13:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Delete.-- MelanieN ( talk) 22:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

Not notable. Appears to be promotional in nature. Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 21:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. This is pretty much your typical non-notable self-published book. It hasn't received coverage in any place that Wikipedia would consider reliable and it fails WP:NBOOK fairly solidly. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - There's not much for an article much less a better one and there's no article for the author so delete for now. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete, does not meet WP:GNG. A search brought up a paucity of sources and nothing reliable. Coolabahapple ( talk) 17:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Delete. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

WC16 (  | 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 article is conjecture and speculation. Fails WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL. RichardOSmith ( talk) 21:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Not much else to state. Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V. The Undead Never Die ( talk) 04:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Exactly, my searches found nothing good and there aren't that many consistently current sources to begin with. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. (no prejudice against redirecting) Swarm ♠ 06:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

Sourced only to blogs and I was unable to find any other secondary sources. Could be a redirect to Aztec mythology or Aztec religion. shoy ( reactions) 20:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Could not find non-blog/forum sources. This religion is in practice, however. All of the other Polytheistic Religions get there own articles separate from the ancient religions they're based on. Due to Neopaganism & Reconstructionism being having heavy European leanings, most of the attention in books are directed that way (with exception to Kemeticism, which could be argued to have gotten more focus due in part to Greek influence in Egyptian history). Some examples are Heathenism (Germanic/Norse), Hellenism (Greek), Roman, & Romuva (Lithuanian).

There are other reconstruction is religions that are poorly written upon. For example, Semitic neopaganism.

It should also be noted that the modern Nahum religion may be in hiding--or at least, remaining somewhat quiet--due to possible discrimination. Some members do cut themselves, which is frowned upon, and how many people remember Aztec religion as a human sacrificing cult? It took a very long time for Wiccan to come out "of the broom closet" due to black cat & baby sacrificing stereotypes (as well as historical persecution). Perhaps people who currently follow the Nahua are still at this stage?

Wikipedia is a place to expand on information. It is a go-to guide for people to get basic information without having to do costly Internet & book researching. I think it's time that Neopagans, Polytheistic reconstructionists, and everybody else acknowledge that these people exist. The modern practicioners of the Nahua/Aztec religion. Artheartsoul1 ( talk) 20:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Aztec religion. Since it seems that "Nahua" is synonymous with "Aztec", the title of this article is really "Aztec religion". I think a redirect would be most suitable here. There does not seem to be enough information available about this reconstructed religion to justify an independent entry. Perhaps, in the future, someone could add a section on the modern revived religion, but the information in this article is of rather poor quality and is therefore unsuitable for merging. -- Biblioworm (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

It looks to me like this article is there to legitimize the editor's site: http://nyx.meccahosting.com/~a00001f1/cuezali/practice.html. Delete it. Senor Cuete ( talk) 23:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete or redirect - most of the search results for "Nahau religion" (with quotes) refer to an ancient meso-American religion but not necessarily precisely the same as the Aztec religion. As concepts, the ancient Nahau religion, the same religion as practices by modern Nahau people, and the "reconstructed neo-Nahau religion" are probably all encyclopedic enough to have 3 different well-referenced articles on 3 different yet similar topics (with Aztec religion being yet another article). However, I couldn't find enough references for the latter two groups in a quick search, and until someone does find adequate references, the two latter subjects should not ahve articles written about them. If Wikipedia were "complete" on this topic, the religion as practices half a millennium ago would be the primary topic. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 04:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^Talk 02:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

Yet unreleased therefore non notable with just a single source that mentions the name name of the film only a single time, not a significant news coverage of the movie. Variation 25.2 ( talk) 20:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

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

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

• Weak keep Coverage for a completed film to release just next month has this meet WP:NFF (paragraph 3). WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD suggest this may remain and grow over time and through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep for now simply to see how the aftermath coverage goes and I would expect this would at least get some minimal coverage from that film industry. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Delete. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

Highly promotional article with no significant reference. Some sources even do not mention the name of the org. Variation 25.2 ( talk) 20:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete Unable to find any reliable sources through the usual types of Google searches, HighBeam, JSTOR, or ProQuest. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Worldbruce ( talk)
• Delete as my searches found nothing good at all. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. CSD#A7 and CSD#G11 also apply. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 19:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

Promotional and I can't see a clear claim to notability through all the puffery and trivia. Maybe I am missing something given how badly it is written. There was also copyvio material, lifted from the subject's own webisite, which I have removed. (See this version if you want to see the additional claims made in that content.) That makes it clear that the artist is releasing records on their own label, so no record deal then. It is also an almost unreferenced BLP. The only reference offered was a spammy link to the subject's own website and the search links above fail to reveal a smoking Gunn (Sorry!). Nothing much but social media.

Note: I had put this on as a PROD rationale but then I saw that PROD had already been contested twice so I am switching this to an AfD. DanielRigal ( talk) 18:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete per A7, G11. Compassionate727 ( talk) 18:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete and salt per above. And now we have an IP who persists in removing AFD and all maintenance templates. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F ( talk) 19:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Speedy Delete - minimal sources found for a musician of that name, mostly primary. Does not meet notability guidelines for entertainers, and the article doesn't even try to do so. Promotional and unencyclopedic content Scr★pIron ^IV 19:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^Talk 02:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Kimball and Morton of Glasgow (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable and sources are not reliable Variation 25.2 ( talk) 17:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Apparently notable and durable firm, under-referenced initially but soundly, with additonal reliable refs now. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 21:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep. There are now suitable references in place to allow this manufacturer (and its products) to be recognised as notable according to WP:COMPANY. Drchriswilliams ( talk) 06:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per SK1 & all that ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^Talk 21:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Jonathan M. Parisen (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete: as non-notable. Quis separabit? 16:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC) Quis separabit? 16:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• ADMINISTRATOR: Please close out as WITHDRAWN BY NOMINATOR. THANKS. Quis separabit? 16:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Closed as an obvious CSD:A7. Black Kite (talk) 23:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

St. Augustine's F.C. (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fully amateur club below step 11 of the English football system. Thus, it is not a notable club per WikiProject Football standards. (Note also that its league is not notable enough to have an article.) Further, the club has not received significant coverage in independent sources. — C.Fred ( talk) 16:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. + Nominator Withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) — ☮ JAaron95 ^Talk 15:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

Fails WP:NFF - The principal photography is yet to commence. — Vensatry _(ping) 14:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Filming set to commence according to multiple sources. Its currently in preproduction. The article will be cleaned up. 15:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.180.117 ( talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Kabali "Pa. Ranjith" Rajinikanth "Radhika Apte" "Prakash Raj"

• Temporary redirect for now to director Pa. Ranjith#Filmography and give the article itself back to its author for a short while as a draft at User:Lakshmikandh/workspace/Pa. Ranjith or whomsoever wants it for a short time. Sorry anon IP 173.33.180.117, but the redirect will not be for long if this begins filming next month... but in its not filming, it is simply TOO SOON. I do grant however that eceptions do exist, and with the sheer amount of existing coverage (see above) this may well be one. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: redirecting the article to the original author would be disastrous as his edits seem very immature and apparently has a history of not responding to talk page posts. I agree it meets the WP:TOOSOON clause, but as nothing in this article is WP:CRYSTALBALLING, I say we give it a go for now. 173.33.180.117 ( talk) 23:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Response: Anon IP you are incorrect. Please re-read what I wrote, as I am NOT suggesting a redirect to an author, but to the sourcable as involved notable filmmaker. And please avoid WP:ADHOM arguments. Since anyone is allowed to contribute, perhaps suggesting a mentor-ship of a newcomer would be far better than your declaring them immature. And please... while I agree this one is TOO SOON, properly sourced WP:SPECULATION is not disallowed, and redirecting for a short while to the filmmaker is precisely per policy and guideline, just as is my suggesting the article could be placed in a draftspace until the topic meets inclusion criteria. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment. The AFD tag on the article was redlinked due to a typo in the template. I've corrected that, but if this debate is down to the wire at closing time, the closing admin should consider adding a day or two to account for those first two days. FYI. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Update, According to this source, the film has begun its principal photography. 173.33.180.117 ( talk) 21:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• No it hasn't... but nice find. The offered source is contradictory by saying "The film's shoot is all set to begin in Malaysia next month. Meanwhile the photoshoot of the film is reportedly happening at AVM Studios in Chennai today, the 21st August, where superstar Rajinikanth and Radhika Apte are said to be taking part." When a source specifically tells us filming begins in Malaysia next month, it is a safe bet it that what is happening 8-21 is as photo shoot for pre-production publicity with two of the film's stars taking part. IE: " Film shoot" is not the same as a " photo shoot", but Bollywood is noted for such. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• The editor who nominated the article for deletion in the first place justified it with the concern that the film hadn't started principal photography. Definitions aside, I believe the article should be kept. Its notable and is backed with reliable sources. 173.33.180.117 ( talk) 12:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• As per this source the team of Kabali is set to commence shooting from 17 September in Malaysia and then move to Hong Kong, Thailand and finally, Chennai. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinkate18nic ( talk • contribs) 08:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC) — Kinkate18nic ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

• Thanks but this article basically lifted that information from Wikipedia itself. Its not notable. 173.33.180.117 ( talk) 12:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• AND, as iflickz.com is a site created through GoDaddy, being someone's WP:SPS it does not meet WP:RS. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep as a topic which exceeds WP:GNG enough to merit being a reasonable exception to WP:NFF. Yes, I had up above suggested a redirect (now struck) based upon what was it looked like when nominated, but the then-stub article has gone through marked improvements to become a decent start or C-class and, as the likely-hood of filming beginning in a very few weeks has increased, I have been convinced that it remaining and being further improved over time and through regular editorial efforts serves the project and its readers. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Withdraw – Looks like the principal photography is about to begin shortly. Besides, the topic seems to have become a reasonable exception to WP:NFF due to the amount of coverage it has received as MichaelQSchmidt says. — Vensatry _(ping) 11:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Delete. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

The Minds' Game (  | 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 self-published novel. Topic content apparently posted completely by book's author as promotion; all content is in-universe. Uses external links to Amazon store as sole reference; other references include a blog post and a dictionary. No sign of notability. Mikeblas ( talk) 14:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - article, apparently written by the book author, with no evidence of notability. Google search came up almost empty (and several hits are false positives to boot). Note: I also nominated the article creator's original draft version in userspace under CSD U5/G11. GermanJoe ( talk) 21:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete per above. It's borderline promotional, but not to the point where I'd say it could be speedied, although the author's intent to promote the book is pretty obvious. I will remove the Amazon purchase link from the article, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. A google search brings up nothing useable, only book download sites and some blogs. Coolabahapple ( talk) 17:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Delete. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Swami Premanand Ji Maharaj (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Even after being involved in many events and work the subject does not have significant coverage in reliable sources. Most of references in the article are either from social networking sites or self-published sources. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO — CutestPenguin ^Hangout 14:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin ^Hangout 14:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin ^Hangout 14:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin ^Hangout 14:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that I can find. I first thought that a "keep" argument could be made based on inherent notability for the president of a political party, but it seems like there is very little coverage (if any) for the party too, and so neither of them likely meet GNG. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 13:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete The nominator is exactly right about the quality of sources used in the article and the ones seemingly available, and Vanamonde93 is right about the notability due to the "political party". The only mention in an RS I could find was this one, which is so trivial that we can't even be sure that it's the same person. Note that there are several other swamis with similar names, eg Swami Premananda and another Swami Premanand Ji Maharaj who was active years before the subject was born. Abecedare ( talk) 13:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Delete. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

Bit part actor. Article likely created for pay, the ( WP:PRIMARY) sources provide nothing beyond namechecks, mainly for minor parts in provincial rep. Guy ( Help!) 13:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete: as non-notable actor. Quis separabit? 17:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment the only two substantial contributors to the article are two redlink SPAs, one of whom created the article and the other who created Draft:Derek Sitter. The article was moved from Draft:Derek Edward Sitter to article space by an editor who's now blocked for undisclosed paid advocacy editing. This whole thing could be the work of the blocked editor. — Brianhe ( talk) 17:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete per Brianhe, We shouldn't allow articles created by paid editors to stay but that aside I can't find anything notability wise so either way delete. – Davey2010 ^Talk 21:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete There are a fair number of potential references, but the only reliable coverage (significant or otherwise) that I can find is from local Oregon sources, with no indication that he's been noticed outside of his home area. Primefac ( talk) 08:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete for now as I found nothing to suggest even minimal improvement and the IMDb page is no help in adding more content. If needed, I suppose draft & userfy. SwisterTwister talk 22:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Swarm ♠ 06:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Fatawa-e-Razvia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not appear to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. A google news search returns zero hits. Current citations do not meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Delete - the article is a vehicle for advertising a link where the subject can be downloaded. Flat Out ( talk) 04:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  I removed the link, no opinion on the notability.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 06:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 07:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep I am working over it and will improve it. Its notability establishes by the fact that it is one of the main book of Sunni Muslims associated with Barelvi movement. It also has different spellings like see here and after changing spelling I also found this JSTOR result which is a legal opinion on supererogation and this Google Scholar result, Changed spelling Google Scholar. ScholarM ( talk) 08:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• While searching for more notable sources, I came to know that Arun Shourie has discussed in length various fatawas of this article in his book, The World of Fatwas or the Sharia in Action: (2012, ISBN  9789350293423). There is already a wiki Page in Urdu language on this subject which is well sourced. I have added Dainik Jagran as a source which is largest circulated daily of India. The subject is indeed notable and widely published in Islamic field. ScholarM ( talk) 18:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Fatawa-e-Razvia or Fatawa-e-Radviyyah or similar spellings is now contains several reliable sources. It has been devoted special chapters by Arun Shourie in his famous book, The World of Fatwas or the Sharia in Action: (2012, ISBN  9789350293423). There is no reason it should not be in Wikipedia. I will improve the article further. ScholarM ( talk) 15:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep: the subject seems to pass GNG. Also, software and online versions are available. Mhhossein ( talk) 18:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Delete In its current form the article should be removed ASAP. Perhaps someone can sandbox it to his user sandbox and use the article for submission after he has worked on it, although it appears to be a very vague thing, not sure if any RS will be found which has discussed this. FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 12:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

*Strong Keep(user voted twice) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC): The topic has now RS and pass GNG. Without looking into the sources how you can make such a comment FreeatlastChitchat. ScholarM ( talk) 15:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• This user voted twice-- Ymblanter ( talk) 16:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

There are NILL RS's here. and i mean literally zero, zilch , nada, al numero big fatto zero. So the article should not have even passed the patrolled phase to be frank, it should have been speedy deleted. FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 03:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• keep Fatawa-e-Razvia the most reference book of Barelvi movement.-- Obaid Raza ( talk) 17:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment: After relisting, I thought that again my vote was required. Apologies. My above Keep vote should be counted. ScholarM ( talk) 18:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Opinions vary about whether or not this this qualifies for deletion per WP:NOTNEWS / WP:BLP1E versus the subject surpassing these policies as per having lasting significance and per meeting WP:GNG. Ultimately, no consensus has formed in this discussion. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

WP:NOT NEWS TheLongTone ( talk) 13:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 14:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 14:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 14:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment Can we include this in India related discussion, because even though the alleged murder was in Thailand, the main suspects was Indian and was arrested by the Indian police. Fotaun ( talk) 17:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Weak delete per WP:BLP1E (or should it be WP:BDP1E?). As expected, there were lots of news coverage, but they are all for the murder case, and it doesn't even seem to be one that is high profile enough to warrant a Murder of Wendy Albano article. Also, one of the hits I found suggests that prior to her death she worked with celebrities, which might be a credible claim to notability if there were sources about that independent of the murder case, but as it stands, there isn't any. Narutolovehinata5 ^{t c csd new} 09:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment I would take step back from just looking at it either a criminal case or biography, what caught my attention here is the politics. A U.S. Senator writing to Hillary to get India to move on a case, shifted this into the interesting category of cases involving international relations (anyone remember the Singapore lashings stories?). There may be a better umbrella for it, I don't know but I what I have wanted to find is if Hillary actually contacted India about this. Fotaun ( talk) 17:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• there may be sources, notability, I'll need to find time to look at the sources, here's the quick google news search [3]. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 03:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep sitting at the nexus of international crime, politics, india=thai-usa relations, and of course the letter to Hillary from a US Senator, makes this at least in my opinion something that is historical and notable. Maybe we don't need this information in a biography but it should probably be somewhere in the "summary of all human knowledge". Fotaun ( talk) 17:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, senators and US secretary of state thrwoing their weight around when US citizens are murdered abroad is run-of-the-mill, no lasting impact, an ordinary muder case, also article is quite some WP:COATRACK, telling stories of unrelated events. Kraxler ( talk) 17:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment I don't think any of that is accurate- it is quite rare to have politicians involved in cases like you are talking about. Comparing this event to put in context is not exactly a coat rack either, that is just standard article writing on Wikipedia. However, that is really a page content issue not a reason to delete (maybe for a merge?) Fotaun ( talk) 13:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep - WP:NOTNEWS is wikipedias most pointless guideline as Wikipedia is based solely or mostly on news in sources, and the material added. Anyway. this one passes WP:GNG. Simple.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 21:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep as per Fotaun, more than a simple WP:BLP1E since it involves several nations (India, Thailand, USA), a high-profile designer, involvement by US politicians, a 2-year manhunt, justice, solid references => keep.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 22:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Delete. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC) P.S. Since the article had been created and deleted three times in recent months, I salted the title as well. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

A Fantástica Fábrica de Cadáver (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:A9 was declined. Musician has no article, is a redirect to the band of which he is/was a member. Additionally it fails WP:NALBUM. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eduardo (rapper). ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 03:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete I suppose as the artist's article has been redirected to the group's and my searches found nothing to suggest independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - I was unable to find adequate coverage of the album in reliable sources. Jujutacular ( talk) 17:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR, per lack of significant participation.) North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

Although I understand it was nominated and I was acknowledge some of the comments made there such as the BBC making it notable even if minimal, I think it may be time for another nom. There's no article for the author Lonna Bradley (which questions its notability if no article is present unless the book was more notable than author which it seems it's not the case here) and there's no linking articles at all therefore no move target. All my searches also found nothing good aside from the usual book links at browser. There's also basically nothing different at the cyr.wikipedia. Pinging previous commenters @ Billinghurst, DGG, Whpq, and WilyD: SwisterTwister talk 05:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• My opinion hasn't changed, beyond that <shrug> — billinghurst sDrewth 11:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment - here is a review in Welsh, anybody who can read that around? Kraxler ( talk) 16:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep but rewrite as a bio of the author, who has written other books--low worldcat holdings, but that's irrelevant for q a book in Welsh. our having no bio of the author can be a sign of our incompleteness; we know WP is not a RS, having nothing in WP is is even less of a reliable source. The review is from Wales Book Council DGG ( talk ) 23:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  07:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

Article copied from Draft space before being accepted. No suitable references and the only indication of notability is that he did his job (no serious accolades or academic positions), which is really more of a MILL situation. Primefac ( talk) 07:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• I believe the article is relevant to the categories it belongs to. I am still working on it, so content and citation addition will soon be completed. I am more than happy to help with its improvement, but I think a deletion is too much. Just let me know what else to do. Thank you. Ellipapa ( talk) 10:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep If one's jobhappens to be " technical coordinator for all CERN's Accelerators and Beam Experimental Areas," (which I think corresponds to CTO at the most important physics lab in the world), and if you become a Fellow of iEE because of it, that shows acknowledgement as an expert in one's field. DGG ( talk ) 03:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)` ) reply
• Keep -- A professor at CERN (which will use the term in the European (not American) sense will certainly be notable. This is currently a poor article, in that probably does not fully reflect his academic achievements. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Hello! Could you please re-examine the article and withdraw some of the comments so that it corresponds the current needs? I just added some info, references, citations and also linked it to Simon Van der Meer's Wiki article so it is not orphan anymore.

I appreciate your help on that! Thank you very much! Have a nice day! Ellipapa ( talk) 13:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Soft delete. Article may be recreated by any administrator upon request. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Ultimate Research Assistant (  | 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 notability. References are for the technology the software uses and not references for the software itself! CerealKillerYum ( talk) 11:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Delete both. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

All Star Family Fortunes (series 2) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:ALS WP:LISTCRUFT article showing by-episode results and notes about celebrity contestants appearing on each episode within a specific season of television game show All Star Family Fortunes. Article does not contain information that meets guidelines in WP:EPISODE, and episode descriptions are filled with trivial details (e.g., answers to specific questions within the episode, joke answers given by celebrities, etc.). Episode ratings, contestant notes and winnings are all unsourced.

This is not a television series with fictional plot synopses that is appropriate to be chronicled in an article, and the specific details of results from a television game show episode do not meet WP:GNG.

Deletion reasons addressed in other similar AFDs, such as:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Deal or No Deal Special shows
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Deal or No Deal (U.S. game show) episodes
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Figure It Out episodes
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of BrainSurge episodes
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Chase (UK game show) episodes
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of My Family's Got Guts episodes

AldezD ( talk) 13:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following related page:

All Star Family Fortunes (series 11) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

AldezD ( talk) 13:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AldezD ( talk) 14:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete both, it's WP:LISTCRUFT and/or WP:FANCRUFT, useless listing of ephemerous appearances on game shows. Kraxler ( talk) 15:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Clearly fails Wikipedia:Notability (music). Closing early due to (a) article subject's request, (b) obviousness of result, and (c) appears to be a magnet for new accounts who are turning this into a bit of a mockery. Floquenbeam ( talk) 18:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

An article about a 16-year-old musician, citing no third-party sources. The article claims that his single "Ignite the Fire" was played on a Charlotte KISS-FM radio station and in 2014 was placed in rotation on MTV. Neither statement is sourced. The only evidence ever offered by the article creator was a Twitter screenshot, [4] which could be of absolutely anything. I can find no online evidence that this musician is any more than one of many using the web for self-promotion. Lacking third-party sources to demonstrate that any of the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (music) are met, the article should be deleted - while I wish the subject of the article luck, I see no reason why Wikipedia should provide free publicity. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 13:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 13:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment: I don't know how I can source the fact that the song was played on a KISS FM station multiple times or the playing of the song on MTV. Please don't delete the page as I continue to find sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herbie rookie ( talk • contribs) 23:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

This AFD process takes 7 days. So you have time to find sources. I suggest you concentrate on that. Many new editors will concentrate on adding a photo or making the article sound better but those things are not a basis of notability. References are what will establish notability and go a long way to keeping the article. Dismas| ^(talk) 23:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep: wtf keep. im a fan of sam and sam meets all the criteria and there isn't a website where you can prove that a song was on the radio. sam tweeted that the song was on the radio and the radio station literally favorited it. and people are adding sources so theres nothing to worry about. i like reading about sam and other people do too so keep the article. Laurenpower ( talk) 02:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC) — Laurenpower ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Please not that this is not a vote - it is a discussion as to whether the article meets the necessary Wikipedia criteria to merit inclusion. And meeting the criteria requires published evidence from third-party reliable sources. Vague assertions that the criteria are met will have no effect on the outcome of this discussion. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 02:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply

ok, well i think the page meets it. ive even heard it on the radio and here's proof, just click the link and look at the favorites: https://twitter.com/sampomerantz/status/459514317210406913 Laurenpower ( talk) 02:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply

What you 'think' is of precisely zero relevance. No sources meeting our requirements, no article. End of story. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 04:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply

this article has been through this before. we already proved to wikipedia that he met criteria and they kept the page. besides, all of us want the article to stay, so. and people have contributed to the article. Whateverlovato ( talk) 13:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC) — Whateverlovato ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

• Delete. Blatantly fails both WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. I'm ignoring meatfactory and fanboy comments posted above. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply

this isn't a vote, it's a discussion. Whateverlovato ( talk) 13:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply

I think Applebee's named Sam a Next Big Thing artist? Herbie rookie ( talk) 13:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply

THEY DID! I remember that. Whateverlovato ( talk) 13:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply

when i edited this page, i noticed this. i don't see anything wrong with this page. i agree with the majority of people on here, keep it. Yololorenzo ( talk) 00:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC) — Yololorenzo ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

can i recommend a compromise? Whateverlovato ( talk) 00:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply

I very much doubt it - there is no room for compromise as far as Wikipedia notability guidelines are concerned. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 00:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply

since it meets at least one criteria, and you've seen a source, and because the majority wants this page, can't you just keep on monitoring the page and making authentic edits to it? Whateverlovato ( talk) 00:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply

No source has been provided that demonstrates that any of the criteria have been met. And this is not a vote - particularly since the 'majority' here seem to be new accounts that have sprung from nowhere, all coming out with the same nonsense. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 00:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Yes, Whateverlovato (00:32, 20 August 2015), anyone is welcome to keep on monitoring the page and adding to it material from reliable, disinterested sources. This of course includes you. If over the next few days you or others can transform the article so that it provides evidence of notability, then I shall no longer be able to do what I do now: compare it with relevant Wikipedia guidelines, and say delete. -- Hoary ( talk) 02:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply

you're deleting the article? why? Whateverlovato ( talk) 02:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply

I've been having a discussion with someone on my talk page who claims to be Pomerantz - saying he doesn't want the article. And a post on Pomerantz's Twitter account now says the same thing, so it is clearly him. Sam says "Talking with a Wikipedia moderator right now. There are people making this article about me, so if you see this, can you all stop?" [5] The discussion on my talk page is here: [6] AndyTheGrump ( talk) 02:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply

oh. so we were annoying him this whole time? :/ Whateverlovato ( talk) 03:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply

It looks that way. If that makes you change your mind about the article (I think it should), you should say so here - that way we can probably close this discussion early, delete the article, and find something more useful to do. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 03:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply

if sam wants it gone, then remove it. im a big fan of him and i dont wanna argue about this anymore tbh, so if the other users come back or try to like get mad at you, i can like go on their talk page and tell them its alright Whateverlovato ( talk) 03:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete Completely fails WP:MUSIC and the unreferenced claims to notability are silly. Maybe he will be a big star some day, but not on August 20, 2015. The "keep" arguments above must be disregarded because their motivation is clear, and they show no sign of understanding our notability guidelines. They seem to be here only as fans of this 16 year old musician. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete Per ATG and Cullen. And due to the very polite request by the subject on ATG:s talkpage, I suggest deleting this article sooner rather than later (I believe 7 days discussion is the standard time?). Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 13:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ( WP:SNOW). North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Who is the best NFL team 2015 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Part of the article duplicates content found at Green Bay Packers, and the rest violates WP:NOTOPINION. Speedy and prod templates both removed by IP. Everymorning (talk) 12:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 12:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete As nom states, fails notability guidelines. An obvious opinion piece. ABF99 ( talk) 13:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. This is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. It should be delete ASAP. Cbl62 ( talk) 14:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Snow delete, obviously. Non-neutral and cannot become neutral. Duplicates info from Green Bay Packers. ~ Rob ^Talk 15:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Snow delete I agree -- clearly violates policy.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 15:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete as test edit/vandalism -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 16:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Speedy per everyone above ^^^ Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Seattle Seahawks. Clarityfiend ( talk) 22:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Delete. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Herlambang Hashemi (  | 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 film director, doesn't meet WP:BIO. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 11:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete -Found nothing to support notability in reliable secondary sources. ABF99 ( talk) 12:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG. If this person ever does become notable then a new article can be created. MarnetteD| Talk 14:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 16:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 16:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete for now as my searches found nothing to suggest further improvement. SwisterTwister talk 17:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Swarm ♠ 06:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply

2013–14 Chester F.C. season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:NSEASONS. Exactly the same as 2012–13 Chester F.C. season AfD JMHamo ( talk) 10:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason given above.

2014–15 Chester F.C. season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2015–16 Chester F.C. season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Keep – Chester are now a professional club. Plenty of other clubs in a similar position that have the same pages. Also as someone mentioned in the discussion of the 2012–13 season Conference teams seem to be the 'cut-off' point for having season pages and these represent that level of football. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2008jordancfc ( talk • contribs)
• Keep Agree with above. JackErskine ( talk) 11:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment - SPI opened on 2008jordancfc & JackErskine, who I believe are the same person. JMHamo ( talk) 11:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment - And I believe this to be comedy gold.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2008jordancfc ( talk • contribs)

• Keep Agree with above. Skyblueshaun ( talk) 11:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment FYI: Skyblueshaun created the latest 2015–16 Chester F.C. season article, the other two were created by 2008jordancfc. JMHamo ( talk) 12:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo ( talk) 10:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete both - we normally only have season articles for clubs which play in a fully-professional league - Chester don't. There is no evidence these meets WP:GNG or WP:NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 17:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Chester are a professional club though and the conference as always been considered the 'cut-off' point for season pages. Also why do these templates ( Template:2013–14 in English football, Template:2014–15 in English football, Template:2015–16 in English football) consist of Conference Premier/National League teams if it isn't a 'fully-professional league' and for you to believe they shouldn't have individual season pages.

• Keep Well-sourced material, clearly passes GNG. While BBC for years consider Conference/National League notable and suitable for covering both matches and club news we still follow obscure criteria of 'fully-professional' league. If one day part-time team would break into Football League, should we delete all the season articles of its rivals? Ridiculous. Martinklavier ( talk) 20:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment Laughable. First reference regarding 'fully-professional leagues' here tells us that League Two was NOT fully professional a few years ago (i mean David Rainford), and who knows how many players are part-timers now. Martinklavier ( talk) 20:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - WP:NSEASONS is quite clear that season articles for clubs are usually only suitable for clubs in top professional leagues. Long standing consensus has been that for the english league system, the fourth tier is the cut off point for this. Ignoring the obvious WP:NOTSTATS issues and the failure to adhere to NSEASONS requirement that articles such as this consist mainly of sourced prose, contrary to comments above, none of the articles are well sourced. Not only do almost all the sources provided reference routine transfers and loan movements rather than any discussion of the season itself, the vast majority of these are from primary sources (often Chester's own website). I am simply not seeing significant, reliable, non-routine coverage of this season in the club's life. Fenix down ( talk) 16:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment Excuse me, may i ask you to point out an example of season article consisting of well-sourced prose, you are talking of? As long as i can see, all the prose in a such articles (even for a PL clubs) is just a copy of information from tables. Martinklavier ( talk) 17:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep - doesn't matter if the article doesn't pass WP:NSEASONS if it meets WP:GNG Nfitz ( talk) 01:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete all WP:NSEASONS is pretty strict about this – only teams playing in fully professional leagues should have a season article unless the season itself meets WP:GNG. As the English fifth tier is not fully professional, and GNG is not satisfied by pure WP:ROUTINE coverage alone, no other choice but to delete these. – Soccer-holic ^{I hear voices in my head...} 20:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep, but they are in need of improving, not least because of the complete absence of any prose. A number of season articles of Conference/National League clubs have attained GA status, which suggests to me that there is enough national and local coverage of this level of football for WP:GNG to be satisfied. Mattythewhite ( talk) 15:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Could you give some examples? Kraxler ( talk) 17:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete all Long-standing consensus that we should not have season articles for non fully-professional leagues. Number 5 7 15:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep all Improvement may be necessary however clearly able to meet WP:GNG as mentioned by Mattythewhite. Paul   Bradbury 08:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep all as per Mattythewhite's argument. They play in a predominantly professional league, and plenty of sources to meet the WP:GNG of the season as a whole. -- Jimbo ^[online] 14:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete all - WP:NSEASONS states 'top' professional league. Largely a dump of stats and the 'timeline' section is also unencylopedic. WP:GNG isn't met I'd say - the topic of 'Chester's 2015-16 Football Season' is not covered as a major topic in multiple independent sources outside of regular news reporting. Super Nintendo Chalmers ( talk) 14:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Delete. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Memorinto (  | 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 film, doesn't meet WP:NFILM. Article evidently written by its director. Verbatim Google search: memorinto. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 09:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete Fails WP:NFF. Also has WP:COI problems. MarnetteD| Talk 14:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete for now (draft/userfy if wished) as my searches found results ( here) but nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - I was unable to find adequate coverage of the film in reliable sources. Jujutacular ( talk) 17:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete WP:A7. --  GB  fan 14:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Just FYI, article creator has been deleting the CSD tag from his account and probably anonymously from IP 103.27.8.43 Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment, there is an open sockpuppet investigation for this editor here. FYI only. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - self-promotion of non-notable student. Only sources are SPS, minor listings, and references for details that are not directly about him. The main claim for notability, "Project Yantr", is carefully described as a future project in development (aka. not currently working) and is not covered by reliable sources. Aside from the self-promotion against policy this is also far WP:TOOSOON. GermanJoe ( talk) 09:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Not seeing any in-depth third-party sourcing or coverage to demonstrate that the [[ basic notability criteria have been satisfied. Just a self-promotional autobiography of a non-notable individual. -- DAJF ( talk) 11:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete as WP:A7. There is not assertion of notability. It is also an autobiography. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• keep . The information provided is not directly linked but is relevant and authorised , basic notability criteria is satisfied.|Raghav marwah ]] (talk) 06:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC) — Raghav marwah ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — ☮ JAaron95 ^Talk 15:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

I'm not finding anything that demonstrates that Richard Bevan was independently notable. He was the son of a banker, the father of a banker, and altogether a rather run-of-the-mill banker from the sounds of it (he did nothing of note himself). The references are mainly "a list of everybody who's ever done something" pieces or vaguely primary sources such as histories of the banks he belonged to. Primefac ( talk) 08:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep. Co-founder of Barclays Bank. Moreover, this second nomination seems premature (the serial nominator removed the tag which read "Please do not rush to mark it for deletion" only three days after his first attempt/this was created...). Very strange behaviour. Zigzig20s ( talk) 09:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

If you're accusing me of socking, then you're seriously mistaken; I have nothing to do with the original nominator, and have only keept tabs on this page since closing the first withdrawn AfD. In revisiting the page today I realised that (a) the {{ new page}} tag was inappropriate for BLP articles, and (b) the page was at a point where any claims of significance (especially after the first AfD) would have been made. There is no indication that he was a co-founder of Barclays, only a partner in the firm that eventually became Barclays (there are a lot of names in those firms, btw). If you can find definitive evidence that he was a key player in the creation of Barclays, then I will definitely reconsider this nomination. Primefac ( talk) 09:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

It sounds like you don't know the topic. The Bevans are a founding family of Barclays, yes. In any case, we asked for a week; it's only been three days. This is premature. Zigzig20s ( talk) 09:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. No claim of significance since my initial nomination. I've reviewed the 'supporting' references to the claim that he was a co-founder - this only shows he was a member of a firm which was then "taken over by Barclay, Bevan, Tritton, Ransom, Bouverie and Co in 1894." Samuel Tarling ( talk) 09:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep -- He was not merely a banker but a bank proprietor. Banks at that period were partnerships, so that each change of partnership is technically a take-over; this is before the days of joint stock banking. I am certainly not suggesting that every bank partner was notable, but the active partners in the major London banks certainly should be. There is a published history of Barclays Bank, so that the facts should be verifiable. The problem with the article is that it is focused on a Brighton Bank, which Barclays took over, rather than on the London bank in which he and his eldest brother became partners according to another of the references cited. Peterkingiron ( talk) 10:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep The Bevan family was quite notable and so the worst case is that we'd merge this into some larger article about the family. Andrew D. ( talk) 12:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Andrew Davidson, does that mean your !vote would actually be to merge this into a larger article? What are your opinions on Richard himself, not the entire family? Primefac ( talk) 12:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: Vague articles about entire families are discouraged because people are individuals. The move is towards articles about specific individuals and a category about said family added to each individual's page. Zigzig20s ( talk) 13:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• We have numerous pages about great families of this sort — see English families, for example. Andrew D. ( talk) 16:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• We're here to decide whether or not to delete the page in question, along with its history. Whether we keep the page as is or make it a section within a large article is comparatively unimportant. The relevant policy is that we should preserve the information. Andrew D. ( talk) 16:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep His role as a partner in banks that eventually became Barclays is a credible claim of significance and that is well attested to by the existing sources. In addition, there are two major histories of the bank (1926 and 2008) that should provide additional information when someone gets them out of the library and A History of the Bevan Family by A.N. Gamble (Headley Brothers, 1924, 144 pages) which has also not been tapped. Finally, there are Brighton newspapers to consult if anyone has current access to the British Library 19th Century Newspapers archive as undoubtedly he would have taken a leading role in Brighton's civic life given his position. Philafrenzy ( talk) 00:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep this nomination is patently absurd and shows a deep misunderstanding both of 19th century, business, politics, and also of Wikipedia. Yes, he inherited his money and lived as a member of the establishment. You might not like the fact that such people existed, but you shouldn't try to "punish" him by withdrawing a Wikipedia article on him just because you don't like him. That is the lamest most pathetic excuse for deletion that I have ever come across (and it is at the heart of another pathetic misunderstanding known as " WP:NOTINHERITED"). A Wikipedia article is neutral - it isn't an award for public service to the community. We have articles on good people, bad people and people who were just trying to live their lives honestly in a confusing society. Le petit fromage ( talk) 03:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Gee, thanks for being CIVIL. Primefac ( talk) 07:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Delete. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

Company doesn't exist Tigerdollars ( talk) 06:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 17. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete as my searches found nothing good at all. SwisterTwister talk 17:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - The company did exist [7] [8] but I can't find anything notability wise so will have to go with delete – Davey2010 ^Talk 22:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - I was unable to find adequate coverage of the company in reliable sources. Jujutacular ( talk) 17:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Delete. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

Unremarkable company, the reference provided contains self published pr website! does not meet wp:RS, not WP:notability Shrikanthv ( talk) 06:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC) Shrikanthv ( talk) 06:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete -No reliable secondary sources discovered to support notability. ABF99 ( talk) 12:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete as my searches found nothing even in the slightest to suggest good sources with the best here (patent) and here (PR). SwisterTwister talk 16:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Delete. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

WP:BLP of a political staffer with no particularly strong claim to notability. Of the eight sources here, three are covering him in the context of quitting Gavin Newsom's staff after Newsom had an affair with his ex-wife ten years ago, one is covering him in the context of quitting another job, three just glancingly namecheck his existence in the process of failing to be about him, and only one is actually substantively about him doing something other than quitting a job. And for that matter, seven of the eight are local sources — and the only non-local one is one of those glancing namechecks. That's not the kind of sourcing it takes to get over WP:NPOL #3; it takes a lot more substance and a lot more non-localized coverage than that — and if you're going to park the notability on the Newsom affair itself, then the problem is that since nothing else here gets him an article, the Newsom affair just makes him a WP:BLP1E. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 04:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete low level city level staffer, no real claim to notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete: all references seem to discuss his wife's affair; no notability fulfilled per se. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG .References mainly cover the affair of his ex wife and his quitting jobs. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 17:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Does not qualify to even be considered under WP:NPOL, since he is not a pol, but a staffer. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply