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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Ostrichyearning ( talk) 13:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Cincinnati Caledonian Pipes and Drums (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

With all due respect, this is not a major or noteworthy band and seems to fail WP:N. Ostrichyearning ( talk) 23:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

I see you have edited and/or created many pages in the pipe band community. Thanks for your contribution Ostrichyearning. But your opinion on the worth of this band does not warrant deletion. As written in WP:N "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." The band is one of the oldest bands in continuing existence in the U.S. and perhaps North America. While it doesn't compete at the grade one level, it is active in the Midwestern U.S. at competitions, festivals and other events. It is a non-profit 501(c)3 organization. I have edited the article slightly to remove a section on the ceilidh which acts as a fundraiser for the group so the article does not appear to be promoting itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celticmaps ( talk • contribs) 16:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC) reply

I agree that this band may be notable by being one of the oldest bands in the US, so will withdraw the nomination. However, the article could still do with some trimming and references to reliable sources. Best, Ostrichyearning ( talk) 13:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

Created by now-blocked sock, of an incredible prolific sockfarm [1] but G5 does not apply because it was created before the master was blocked.

Non notable company. Ref 1 is a mention, Ref 2 and 3 are mentions in a list of multiple of new companies in a local area published in a local newspaper, ref. 4 is a one sentence mention in a large general article., ref 5 is straight PR. In my experience eWeek from the start in 1983 has been very open to the publication of press releases --( In the 80s I let them send me a controlled circ subscription, because in my job at the time, I needed to see relevant press releases. Press releases have a genuine often-constructive purpose, but not in an encyclopedia ) DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. There's already one strike against this article, as it was created under false pretences by a sockmaster. The second strike is the lack of significant coverage. Most of the coverage I've found online are announcements that AppsFreedom has obtained funding from investors. A page from the website MobileVillage seemed like a possible source until I discovered that MobileVillage offers "help with your company’s own publicity needs". About the best I could find was this article from CIO Magazine, but there still isn't enough coverage to prove notability. Altamel ( talk) 01:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete as entirely PR, the information and sources; nothing here amounts to anything at all close to substance. SwisterTwister talk 02:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete -- no indications of notability nor significant RS coverage to meet GNG and CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete – per others. More spam... Citobun ( talk) 10:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect. Non notable kindergarten/primary school, redirected to Darnestown, Maryland#Education Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Seneca Academy and Circle School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Private primary school. Tagged with Notability and Unreferenced for eight years. No in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources. MB 23:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

BLP of a local TV journalist with no secondary coverage to indicate notability. MB 21:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete this news anchor is not the subject of any reliable secondary sources' articles. There is nothing notable about her. ArchieOof ( talk) 00:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete non-notable local market TV journalist. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete as the awards listed don't meet any exceptions to WP:GNG Burroughs'10 ( talk) 19:28, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom and others. Citobun ( talk) 10:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Abra, Arizona (  | 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; fails WP:GEOLAND. This was never anything more than a railroad stop that has not existed in many years. Note that this was previously PRODed, but the article creator removed the PROD based on belief that listing in the USGS Geographic Names Information System is automatic justification for article. This location is within the current community of Paulden, Arizona and has no independent notability (not even considered a Ghost town). MB 22:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC) MB 22:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Per WP:GEOLAND: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." By definition, the USGS designation is legal recognition of the place. And the USGS listing gives the location the definition of a "populated place". The fact that it is also located within a CDP is irrelevant. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep per WP:GEOLAND & One1. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment USGS designation is NOT legal recognition of the place. Legal recognition means that a law has been passed creating a place (a village, city, town, etc.) Just being in the UGGS database is not legal recognition. Yes, the USGS is a legal entity of the US Government. It maintains a database of place names which pretty much includes any name ever used on a map in the US. This quote " 'Legally recognized' means there is a law that recognizes it. Post offices, maps, etc. have nothing to do with it." is from Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(geographic_features)/Archive_2#Legal recognition and I certainly agree with it. MB 04:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment - That is your opinion, not a Wiki standard, or even a guideline. Legally recognized means recognized by a legal authority. Period. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment - That is your opinion of what legally recognized means. I don't think that map names in a database meet the bar nor that every list created by every government agency denotes legal recognition. Following this would lead to many thousands of articles that could never be more than a stub, and is the reason why these do not survive AFD - as was just seen in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A-1 Trailer Park, Arizona and all the other ones that AFD mentioned as precedent. MB 13:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment - just fyi - the fact that an article might never rise beyond the status of a stub is not a valid rationale for deletion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep It is a populated, legally recognized place, and per WP:GEOLAND, that's enough by itself. I personally think that definition in WP:GEOLAND is far too broad, because it automatically justifies the existence of articles like this, and I don't see any information online that could ever expand this article beyond a stub - but that being said, until that standard is changed, this article is a keep. ArchieOof ( talk) 12:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep - this is a real, albeit it very small, rural community, as can be found easily online at Google Maps, news, etc. That it once had a railroad stop indicates it was probably more populated. Past precedents have "kept" several ghost town stubs (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/McGrawville,_New_York, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Theba,_Arizona, and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ong's_Hat,_New_Jersey). Bara-Hack was Prodded before being rescued by me and others. This differs, say, from a small mobile home, housing complex or trailer park, to which we've deleted and that I've argued for their deletion as recently as today several times. This place appears to pass my standards and that of Carlossuarez46, an old hand at these matters. Bearian ( talk) 20:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC) reply

I don't see anything online about this. Can you give sources. I find one company in the area that uses ABRA in its name. I don't see anything that you refer to in news. I don't see anything on Google maps to indicate there was ever any kind of community there. There is still a railroad there, but not a junction, siding or any building. There are residences hundreds of yards away, but those are modern structures considered part of current community of Paulden. I believe the current population of Abra is zero, and probably always was. It seem to me that at some point, the railroad picked this name for this point along the track for some reason and that is all it ever was. I think the GNIS notion that is a "populated place" is a misnomer - probably it is a named place that doesn't fit into any other geographic category (lake, hill, etc.) and by default is listed as a "populated place". The only references I find are railroad related, as in "track realignments ... (Abra to Skull Valley)". I have found nothing to indicate it is a "real, albeit it very small, rural community". MB 05:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:PEOPLE. Neither the sources in the article or on the web discusses the subject in detail.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete - the subject fails WP:BASIC. Wikipedia is not where PRs come to compose their C.Vs. — Oluwa2Chainz »» ( talk to me) 22:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

please oluwa2chainz always assume with good faith WP:GOODFAITH when contributing to AfD. Jamzy4 ( talk) 14:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Jamzy4 What does WP:GOODFAITH have to do with my vote? It is quite obvious you need to get familiar with that topic. — Oluwa2Chainz »» ( talk to me) 07:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete yet another article on a non-notable businessman. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete - puff piece for a non-notable individual. Lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Citobun ( talk) 10:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Seyed Mohammad Hosseini (ambassador) (  | 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 living person. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 01:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep - More than enough RS out there to incorporate into the article. Meatsgains ( talk) 03:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply

The sources are not about him as the subject and mostly include one line references. LibStar ( talk) 08:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 07:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 07:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 07:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• delete fails WP:BIO. The sources are not about him as the subject and mostly include one line references. LibStar ( talk) 08:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Yes, as Meatsgains states, there are plenty of reliable sources. But simply having reliable sources isn't a criterion for inclusion. The requirement is: significant coverage in reliable sources that are verifiable and independent of the subject. None of the sources in Meatsgain's link, as far as I can determine, contain any significant coverage whatsoever about the subject. They are either not about the subject, or they give the subject a trivial mention, not significant coverage. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 07:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete - After further examination of the sources, I realize most do not detail the subject and/or only mention him in passing. Meatsgains ( talk) 15:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Ambassador from Iran to Saudi Arabia is a big deal, as Joe Biden would say. Iran–Saudi_Arabia_relations are fairly significant, so there ought to be plenty about this diplomat. Bearian ( talk) 20:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC) reply

please provide actual significant coverage of this individual to demonstrate that he meets WP:BIO. another case of WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar ( talk) 23:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Bearian: Being a "big deal" isn't an inclusion criterion on Wikipedia. History is full of obscure, non-notable ambassadors, and we don't need an article about every one of them. Asserting "there ought to be plenty about this diplomat" isn't an argument for keeping either. The fact is, there doesn't appear to be anything beyond trivial mentions about this diplomat. I've looked. If you can find examples of significant coverage, I'm happy to change my delete to keep. ~ Amatulić ( talk)

agree with above, I would think that a former admin would understand better what makes something notable. LibStar ( talk) 02:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply

After looking again for reliable sources in English, I am striking my #keep !vote. I did find a couple of poorly-translated English sources that mentioned this person, as well as many that mention a similarly-named minister in the "9th government" of Iran. The Google searches linked above don't do a good job of finding sources; I had to use my own search techniques to go deeper into the Internet. That being said, I concede there is very little, much of it shallow or from government propaganda, about this person. I kept thinking how odd that would be. Upon reflection, it's possible that this person is not really a diplomat at all, and for that reason, limits available biographical information to the public, and that's why there's so little available on the Internet compared to what should be. Perhaps that I accidentally doxed him is a reason to Delete based on WP:BLP. Bearian ( talk) 12:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete -- a non notable official; coverage is insufficient to meet GNG. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete per others - appears to lack significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Citobun ( talk) 10:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

Article created by the content translation tool. A very talented man, no doubt, but notable? Black Kite (talk) 00:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Not much out there covering the subject but I suggest we hold off on deleting since there is an "under construction" tag and the page might be improved with sources. Meatsgains ( talk) 01:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep The article says he has had solo exhibitions at major museums and therefore meets WP:ARTIST, and the article currently contains a reference. I will support deleting if it can be shown that the claims are false. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep - A widely Exhibited artist. Masterknighted ( talk) 15:45, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete and Draft instead as they are not collections, exhibitions are not as convincing so we can wait for better if available thusbehy I suggest Draft. SwisterTwister talk 01:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Reply please note, SwisterTwister, that WP:ARTIST 4 (b) says "has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition" at "several notable galleries or museums." Solo exhibitions at notable museums constitute major evidence of the notability of an artist, more so than being held in a permanent collection, which often means sitting in a warehouse out of public view. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 07:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 07:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete, without prejudice to recreation. Blow it up and start over. The sourcing of this article is hopeless. There is no such thing as the "Complete Gentleman Memorial Fund Awards of the House of Fabergé". Miroshnikov may be notable, but there is nothing in this article worth saving. Mduvekot ( talk) 15:34, 31 July 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

BLP of financial blogger with no reliable in-depth secondary coverage. Article has been tagged with Notability, Sources, and Orphan for five years with no improvement. Searching today does not find any acceptable sources. MB 21:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete not a notable person in any sense. google search produces nothing. ArchieOof ( talk) 00:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete as nothing at all close for WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF, Delete by all means honestly. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete non-notable financial writer. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- strictly a vanity page. Insufficient RS coverage to meet GNG. K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete – promotional article created by single-purpose account with apparent conflict of interest. Citobun ( talk) 10:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty ( talk) 16:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

Google reveals no significant coverage (nothing more than lists of titles, no actual discussion of the subject) in RS. Prod removal claimed the article "seems to have adequate sourcing", but this is plainly, utterly false—of the three "sources", one is non-independent, and the other two offer the most trivial of mentions; one wonders how the prod remover could come honestly to such a conclusion. Unless sources that demonstrably meet RS and offer significant coverage are added, the article obviously cannot be kept; any other argument is an obvious waste of time. — swpb ^T 12:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete non-notable translator. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep and Comment: Once again with the personal attacks. Please focus on content. There are sources, and a WorldCat search pulls up about 15-20 works, even eliminating the duplicates. Given that the individual graduated from college in 1964, and mostly worked with the Greek language, we are not exactly going to find reviews of translators, even fairly prominent ones... WorldCat lists at least two of these books she worked on as being reviewed (Harvard Review, no less, also World Literature Today), though I can't access the sources: [2], [3]. Someone with access to a university database could do some more digging. Montanabw ^(talk) 05:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete - I was unable to establish notability when I tagged this back in May 2016. Notability is established by coverage of the subject which is lacking ehre. Coverage of the subject's work is not wholly compelling. ~ Kvng ( talk) 14:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Translators don't get a lot of press, that doesn't mean they are not notable; notability can be established even by one or two sources, and here we have sources, the Harvard Review and World Literature Today, reviewing books of others that she translated. I can't access them, but in all honesty, I think we are past "puff piece" here. Montanabw ^(talk) 05:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC) reply
    • You know very well that mere mentions do not constitute "significant coverage" of the translator by any standard. — swpb ^T 13:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC) reply
      • Well, my thinking is that we have to be genre-specific. Show me a sample article of an unquestionably notable translator. These are people who work in obscurity for the most part; seems there should be some sort of translators recognition or something, but I can't say I've heard of such a thing... curious if anyone here knows. Montanabw ^(talk) 04:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

There are translators of Marcel Proust who are unquestionably notable: Charles Kenneth Scott Moncrieff, Terence Kilmartin, D. J. Enright and James Grieve (translator/author) come to mind. There is Constance Garnett, the famous translator of the 19th century Russian authors and many others. Your generalisation is unviable. Xxanthippe ( talk) 05:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC). reply

Curious the criterion that makes a modern translator -- absent another job -- notable and if it is in Google. Sincere question. Enright was an author as well as a translator, I don't really see Grieve having much better sourcing in his article than in this article (plus he's a professor and an author on top of being a translator anyway), Moncrieff died in 1930 so we've had 8+ years to assess his impact, and Garnett died in 1946, so ditto, plus only 13 sources there. I'm sincerely curious what would make a living person who is primarily a translator (and not a writer in their own... right) notable as a translator beyond what we have here...do they have to be dead or over 50 years to count? Montanabw ^(talk) 06:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep I added the reviews from World Literature Today to the article. Also, I wonder if anyone who is fluent in Greek might have more references. That said, the reviews of her translations fall under 4c of WP:NAUTHOR. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 17:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Good work! Insofar as those reviews discuss the translation and translator specifically, rather than the work in general, I'd agree that they meet 4c; they're certainly far better than what the article relied on before. In light of the new sources, I change my position to neutral—under WP:WDAFD I can't technically withdraw the nomination, since it's gotten some support for "delete". — swpb ^T 20:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC) reply
    • The equivalent of withdrawing would be to change to "keep" not "neutral". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply
      • I said neutral, and I meant neutral. There are some borderline sources, but I'm not convinced of notability. — swpb ^T 17:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. She has translated a few books, but has not received significant attention. Xxanthippe ( talk) 05:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC). reply
• Keep per World Literature Today citations. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Two problems here. Two articles in one publication does not constitute coverage in multiple sources. Is there another source we should look at? Also, World Literature Today coverage merely mentions the name of the subject without any elaboration. This is clearly "trivial mention" and so does not constitute WP:SIGCOV. ~ Kvng ( talk) 21:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete Firstly this fails GNG by a mile. There are absolutely no sources discussing the subject. Secondly, the reviews in World Literature Today are not only slight, but also from a single source. There is literally no way the subject will pass WP:AUTHOR. For a work to be considered significant, multiple reviews of the work (in different sources) are required, which is far from the case here. As shown above, there are notable translators. The subject unfortunately is clearly not notable. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 13:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete – lacks significant coverage in a breadth of reliable secondary sources. Citobun ( talk) 16:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and lacks coverage. Ayub407 ^talk 19:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. It is very difficult to prove translators notable, and these two minor reviews are not sufficient to do it. DGG ( talk ) 22:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Jade Marlin (fashion designer) (  | 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 fashion designer. Article created after the name was salted. Marvellous Spider-Man ( talk) 00:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete non-notable fashion designer. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 16:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Jessika Kenney (  | 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. Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a musician, whose only discernible claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC is that she exists. The sourcing here is stacked mainly on primary sources and glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of her husband. A singer is not entitled to an article just because she exists, or because of who she's married to; reliable source coverage must be present to support one, but there are exactly zero sources here which are substantively and reliably about her. Bearcat ( talk) 00:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete non-notable musician. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep She is notable as a mezzo soprano who is proficient in other languages and as an experimental composer/artist. I've found reviews of her work in the Seattle Times, the New York Times and she's had a solo art exhibit in Seattle at a major art museum. She's an established musician, too, and not always performing with her husband. Many of the reviews I found discussed only her vocals. I added the references to the article, so please check there. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 17:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Megalibrarygirl. Montanabw ^(talk) 16:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep very well sourced article about a prominent musician — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peoplelivinginallcolorseternally ( talk • contribs)

Note: The above comment was mistakenly added to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Jessika Kenney. RickinBaltimore ( talk) 18:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 16:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Stevie Cochran (  | 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. Advertorially toned WP:AUTOBIO of a musician with no strong or well-sourced claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC. Except for a discography listing on AllMusic which fails to contain any biographical content about him, the sourcing here is entirely of the primary variety. As always, Wikipedia is not a free PR platform where musicians get to start articles about themselves just because they exist; RS coverage must explicitly verify passage of one or more specific NMUSIC criteria, but nothing here satisfies either of those conditions. Bearcat ( talk) 00:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply

*Delete Fails WP:GNG. John Jaffar Janardan ( talk) 04:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC) striking confirmed sockpuppet Atlantic306 ( talk) 03:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete Promotional page for a non-notable musician. No mentions on any websites that aren't user-submitted content. ArchieOof ( talk) 11:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete - I can't find good sources even for a basic article. Blythwood ( talk) 22:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete Poorly sourced. ShelbyMarion ( talk) 16:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Based on the most recent commentary, this seems to satisfy WP:GNG. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Closet Space (  | 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 direct-to-video film with no references and no coverage in reliable, independent sources. I can't find a single review by a notable critic or newspaper, and it doesn't appear to be for sale anywhere. Fails WP:NF and WP:GNG. Pianoman320 ( talk) 18:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Page is completely unsourced and lacks coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains ( talk) 19:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Also note that page creator maintained several pages about non-notable horror movies and directors back in 2007. Apparent attempts to imply notability by creating many articles around films and directors at once. Long since banned for an inappropriate username. This probably needs to be sorted through. Jergling ( talk) 21:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 06:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 06:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I found two reviews in RS, Geeks of Doom and Dread Central. Per this piece in Icons of Fright it looks like House was interviewed by Fangoria about the film, but the link is dead and I can't pull it up via the Wayback Machine. It's likely one of the several news stories that ended up being archived when Fangoria revamped their website a few years back. In any case, there's enough here to where the film could weakly pass NFILM and the Fangoria mention gives off the impression that there might be more out there that just got eaten by the Internet since the movie's 2008 release, which can happen. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Weak Delete - If someone could show me just one or two more decent reviews beyond the various blogs and other self-published sources, I could be pushed over the edge. My own search didn't turn up enough to satisfy GNG/NFILM, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • FWIW I would support Userfying/Draftifying if Tokyogirl79 feels confident there might be a bit more. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Userfying/draftifying isn't a bad idea, if anyone is interested in taking charge of it. I get the impression that there's more out there, but it's likely off the Internet for whatever reason. Redirecting to Mel_House#Filmography_.28as_director.29 is also a possibility since it'd leave the edit history in place in case more comes up in the future. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Expanded search:

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

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

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

Japan DVD, year,type:(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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Keep While it had no USA release until 2010, it DID have multiple non-USA DVD releases under different titles and then theatrical releases so we look further. Coverage by Dread Central [4] [5] [6] [7] is decent enough for this genre when supported by genre sources Blog Citics, Terror Scribe, Video Views, Dr. Bloods Video Vault, Film Bizarro, and Kino.de. Deleting an improvable topic for other's lack of attention does not improve the project. Sorry. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep in view of the extra sources that have been found in the reliable sources for horror films such as Dread Central and Fangoria ( which exists offline) which are different to other genres and allow WP:GNG to be passed Atlantic306 ( talk) 02:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Chyron Corporation. MBisanz ^talk 01:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

Still not convincing substance to actually suggest independent notability, I still confirm my PROD. SwisterTwister talk 03:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment – The company was previously named Chyron Corporation, for which an article exists. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

• Comment: The merge previously proposed by @ Trivialist: should probably be considered in parallel with this AfD. One factor relevant to the AfD is the "genericized trademark": a Google Books search does confirm use of "chyron" as a term of art, which should be referenced into the article(s) if someone has access to a source in better than snippet view. AllyD ( talk) 07:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Chyron Corporation as both articles discuss the same company, only Chyron Corporation does the job better. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. After two relistings, the discussion doesn't seem any closer to consensus. MelanieN ( talk) 00:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

Dated article with no references created by SPA. 9 years on, the band does not seem to sufficiently have met WP:Music or even the broader WP:GNG. One album ( Life is Still Beautiful has little coverage (also being AfD'd here). Very little notable coverage - all i could find was this Guardian band of the day article. Rayman60 ( talk) 18:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep per first AfD. Enough coverage to demonstrate notability: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. -- Michig ( talk) 19:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment – The first AfD discussion is located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Orange Lights. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment - In response to Michig's 5 examples of coverage that confers notability, which were also in the original AfD, I respectfully disagree. 1: Guardian new band of the day - this is done every day, was on over 1700 in 2014. I believe that a considerable proportion of these bands fail to ever reach significant notability. 3 & 4: These are just album reviews. When I used to read print publications, having an article or coverage required a certain degree of notability. Having an album reviewed required your PR guy sending a free CD to the office well before the deadline. 5: This is a local newspaper article interviewing one member of the band that mentions the band but is not specifically about them. There are mentions of them on the web enough for someone to consider sufficient notability, but for me I think these do not confer notability. Any band that has some sort of PR machine behind them (they were on Warner Music) would have had a trace in these sort of publications, but this isn't enough for me hence the D vote/nomination. Rayman60 ( talk) 16:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment I would note that the first deletion was closed on a rationale of no consensus due to a lack of participation. The closing user - not an administrator - was challenged on four such closures in a 48 hour space. Four participants is well above what we'd usually consider a quorum here, and so I consider that close to be incorrect. @ Kurtis: and @ Bearian: You both participated in the previous debate and your return here to reaffirm your views would be welcome. KaisaL ( talk) 16:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. As per the original AFD, this is a band that achieved nothing of note, meets no part of WP:MUSIC, and folded without fanfare. The brief coverage linked was not sustained and is not substantial. It is the biggest problem with music AFDs - I feel I'm saying this a lot - that users dig up a handful of press pieces from what may seem like important sources, and say that these mean it meets the criteria because there is evidence of "coverage". On any degree of investigation, this coverage comes from either minor sources (e.g. local newspapers), or from major sources, but buried on their website or as part of a series on new bands (as with The Guardian link here). The argument for inclusion is that a vast, daily, web-only series on new bands, that covers hundreds of them, an album review via a mid-level website, and two local newspaper pieces (one of which isn't even primarily about the band) is enough for this band to meet the criteria for inclusion. The barrel has been well and truly scraped to even dig those up as the total sum of this band's coverage, and not one of them brings The Orange Lights close to notability. KaisaL ( talk) 16:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment. We have well established general and subject-specific guidelines, and quite simply, this band satisfies both. I'm alarmed and disappointed that over the course of 2 AfDs now nobody else has been able to find coverage beyond the (perfectly good) Guardian article. I just searched again and found the following additional examples of coverage: The Journal, KCRW performance, Birmingham Mail, Liverpool Echo. I would also like to point out that web searches usually only find a subset of all the coverage that exists, so it should not be assumed that these 9 sources represent everything that exists. -- Michig ( talk) 17:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment. And here's some coverage from the NME about their headlining set in New York, and further NME items confirming the band's appearances at major UK festivals: [13], [14] and the album got a review in the Scottish Sun which is partially visible from a Google search. -- Michig ( talk) 17:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC) And here's another review of the album from Gigwise: [15]. -- Michig ( talk) 17:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC) reply

None of this changes my view at all. For a start, most of these links are local media, mostly within the same newspaper group in fact. They're restricted, broadly, to the What's On section of the websites and you will find that thousands upon thousands of bands are covered in this way. To pick out one: The Liverpool Echo piece is a selection of snippets and a preview of a gig at a tiny venue in Liverpool. This isn't significant or substantial coverage. The radio station is local, the NME piece is just about the Club NME series which isn't the same as being covered by NME, as it's actually just a night that's put on for new bands in London. I can't help but feel like what we have here is two users - myself and Rayman60 - that are familiar with the intricacies of the music press, and yourself, who is broadly bringing up names of publications without actually looking at the content. The entire content of one of your links is, "Newcastle quintet, Orange Lights, perform their melodic and beautiful songs on Morning Becomes Eclectic at 11:15am." If we're going to start having articles for bands that were in a couple of new band feature series and a slew of local newspapers then we'd run out of bandwidth. On the topic of the festival appearances, if you are familiar with The Great Escape you would know it's a festival for new bands, and the other one is that they opened the fifth and smallest stage at V Festival, so we're hardly talking the main stage at Glastonbury here. And finally, Gigwise for all intents and purposes is a music blog and again covers band upon band, it's not a major publication. Maybe if there were hundreds of these pieces, we'd have a point, but as Rayman60 correctly pointed out, The Orange Lights briefly had major label backing so it would be normal that there'd be the odd review. This is another long comment, so I'll sum it up as such: The coverage you are linking is not substantial, significant or sustained, much of it is within publications that are unsuitable for establishing notability, and the coverage in those that are is fleeting or within series that by their very nature cover tons of bands that never became notable. Thus, I see no reason not to delete. KaisaL ( talk) 22:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC) reply

No, the Great Escape festival is/was all about 'new music', not 'new bands', hence the line up that year listed in that article consisting of pretty much all notable bands. Gigwise is an accepted reliable source, not a 'blog'. The main NME article is about a headline show in New York City, not "a night that's put on for new bands in London". Ignoring the notability guidelines, mischaracterizing the coverage. and coming up with the old chestnut about 'running out of bandwidth' gives your arguments little credibility. -- Michig ( talk) 06:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure there's much "desperate" about my critiquing your sources - my apologies that I like to make a thorough case at AFD rather than just allow a few links swing a situation. I haven't seen one user actually back up your case on the band or its members. We will see how it goes, but I still maintain that your knowledge of the nuances of the music press is a little bit limited if you consider this to be a significant sum total of coverage. KaisaL ( talk) 14:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Desperate because your critique had little or no basis in fact, and now you resort once again to snide remarks about me, which anyone who knows me IRL would find laughable. Your position is clear, as is mine, so I would suggest we leave it for others to offer their opinions, and the closing admin can judge the merits of the arguments put forward. -- Michig ( talk) 14:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• I don't feel passionate enough about this article either way to lose any sleep over whether or not it's kept, but for the record, I don't disagree with what I said last time. Kurtis ^(talk) 21:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment For the purposes of the closing admin, Kurtis' previous comment was a !vote for deletion. KaisaL ( talk) 22:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Weak delete, based on shallow coverage yet lack of significant coverage. Michig has made a good argument for keeping it, based on reviews of their one CD, which normally is sufficient to let an article stay in. In this case, the coverage just seems so basic. There's no argument that they pass WP:MUSICBIO by meeting the usual factors - a hit song, national touring, etc. Bearian ( talk) 01:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep – Brief but nontrivial coverage in The Guardian, Allmusic, The Skinny, the Manchester Evening News, the Nottingham Post, The Journal (Newcastle upon Tyne), the Birmingham Mail, the Liverpool Echo, NME, and Gigwise, taken together, is more than enough to meet WP:BAND criterion #1. Paul Erik ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

I fail to see how you can call this from the Nottingham Post, which you have cited, anything other than trivial. The band is mentioned twice in passing in two lists of projects. It's utterly irrelevant and suggests you haven't looked at the sources properly. KaisaL ( talk) 16:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Michig ( talk · contribs)'s sources. This article from The Guardian, this article from Trinity Mirror's thejournal.co.uk, this article from Liverpool Echo, and this article from Birmingham Mail provide significant coverage about the subject.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Orange Lights to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard ( talk) 06:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

Fails WP:BIO; no coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:AUTHOR. Magnolia677 ( talk) 20:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Did a little searching. I started by searching the first book listed, "Lenny Bruce: The Making of a Prophet" Thomas's role as a comedy writer is discussed in this Dissertation (Laughter in revolt: Race, ethnicity, and identity in the construction of stand-up comedy Daube, Matthew. Stanford University, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2010. 3395868. Did not read to see how thoroughly it is discussed) His collaboration with Bruce is described in the book review that ran in in The Guardian - I just added it to the article. And this book Thomas' memoir of that collaboration, is cited and more than cites in quite a lot of books about Bruce and about that era in comedy. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• I'm not sure what to make of this. He looks like he should be notable, but at present this is a barely-cited fan bio. Delete without prejudice, 'cos even if this were kept it'd be WP:TNT material - David Gerard ( talk) 11:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

Self-produced musician fails WP:MUSIC with minimal coverage from secondary sources. Awards are from non-notable groups. Blackguard 05:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Weak Keep - he's an Australian Country Music hands of fame and New Zealand country music hands of fame inductee, which is quite notable - there are only about a dozen people who have achieved recognition in both countries in this way, and the majority of the others have articles. Though only two albums are listed, it appears he has recorded about a dozen, several of them released on small independent labels like Tabbita (not self-produced). Seems to have had numerous singles on the Australian Country Music Charts. The article needs considerable rewriting, and WP:MUSIC is barely scraped, but he might just qualify - he does just about reach criterion 1 with this and this. Grutness... wha? 11:40, 5 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep without prejudice against a future AfD. I think the best course for the article right now is to retain and improve it. If six months go by and we can't get something more solid, then let's revisit AfD. — C.Fred ( talk) 17:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete Does not pass the notability guidelines for musicians. If they do in the future, the article can be recreated. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC) reply

More from Capital News [16] and [17]. duffbeerforme ( talk) 12:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 16:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

fails WP:GNG, no indication of notabilty. Large coat rack of speakers and announcements, but no own merits The Banner  talk 21:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete two of the sources are dailymail. fails GNG, obviously promotional. Jytdog ( talk) 03:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete - per nomination and WP:PROMO -- Zackmann08 ( ^{Talk to me}/ _{What I been doing}) 18:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete as entirely PR, nothing at all consisting of independent substance of how there's enough for its own notability, all enough for deleting. SwisterTwister talk 22:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- a non-notable event organiser; coverage is mostly PR / trivial. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Idaho USA. She is already mentioned at the Miss Idaho page so a redirect is appropriate. If the current beauty pageant discussion results in a "keep" outcome for this person, the redirect can be expanded back into an article. MelanieN ( talk) 00:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

Rammell is really only noted for winning the Miss Idaho USA title, and that is one event notability. Her refusing to be photographed with Idaho's governor because he ordered the killing of her family elk herd is just not a notable enough incident to raise her to the level of notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:36, 12 August 2016 (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/2016 August 12. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Miss Idaho USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:ONEEVENT and non-notable one at that, since there's no stand-alone article on the event for the year that she competed in. I do not see substantial coverage, even taking the trivial controversy into account. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 05:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment: The discussion on pageant winners' notability is taking place here: RFC on creation of consensus standard, with participants variously advocating that (1) state level winners are not presumed notable, (2) state-level winners are not presumed non-notable; or (3) a special guideline is unnecessary, and that GNG should be used. There's an overlap between the these three positions. There aren't really voices for "state-level winners are always presumed notable" so I don't think the outcome of the discussion, if any, would have an impact on this AfD, which is trying to establish whether the subject meets GNG. Thus it may not make sense to suspend the AfD process for this nomination. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Mothers Against Drunk Driving. I'm closing this one article as Redirect, The rest should either be nominated individually or bundled in to another AFD, As there's already a keep !vote above the nominated articles I believe redirecting them would simply cause confusion - These newly listed should've been added the moment this was nominated, Anyway closing as redirect. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^Talk 15:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Nevermind closed all as redirect - The notability on them all was extremely poor and nominating them individually would be rather bureaucratic ... something I hate with a passion..... So all have been closed as redirect, Thanks, – Davey2010 ^Talk 15:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG Boleyn ( talk) 20:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Mothers Against Drunk Driving. The subject does not appear to have individual notability; the sources listed in the article are all primary, and my searches do not turn up anything better to pass GNG. K.e.coffman ( talk) 19:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment My only concerns about that proposal are that she isn't mentioned in that article, so it could confuse readers. I would also favour moving Katherine Prescott (disambiguation) to Katherine Prescott if this one is found nnon-notable. Boleyn ( talk) 20:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment -- this article appears to be part of a series on MADD presidents created by the same user. Should they all be deleted, or perhaps moved to the MADD article?

MADD presidents

• Candy Lightner 1980–1985
• Norma Phillips Thorworth 1985–1988
• Micky Sadoff 1988–1991
• Milo Kirk 1991–1993
• Rebecca Brown 1993–1995
• Katherine Prescott 1995–1997
• Karolyn Nunnallee 1998–1999
• Millie Webb 2000–2002 ^[1]
• Wendy Hamilton 2002–2005 ^[2]
• Glynn Birch July 2005–June 2008 ^[3]

K.e.coffman ( talk) 20:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Merge I think it would make more sense to include Prescott into the MADD article. Including information about presidents (since we already have it written up here) would be useful. People often look for that sort of information about organizations. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 19:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Relist AfD with other MADD presidents to give time for consensus to develop around the group. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Redirect all presidents above to Mothers Against Drunk Driving and merge list of presidents. None seem to be notable in their own right, but would be useful in the MADD article. TonyBallioni ( talk) 03:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Redirect all at best since they have no claims of independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Redirect all to Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Not individually notable. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY. WubTheCaptain ( talk) 20:11, 21 August 2016 (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/2016 August 21. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete - there's nothing showing or claiming notability here - David Gerard ( talk) 14:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent WP:RS references. Refs provided are from the developers or forum posts. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric ( talk) 15:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

pretty much unintelligible, prod removed without explanation Jac16888 ^Talk 17:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. This is a straight unedited Google translation of the Persian Wikipedia article. As such it is useless, because Google Translate does a very poor job between Persian and English. We won't lose anything by deleting this because the Persian article will still be there for anyone who wants to produce an intelligible translation. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 19:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Agree with the IP, this needs a WP:TNT. Even with a proper translation, the appraising voice has to be toned down. -- HyperGaruda ( talk) 13:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I see four "keep" !votes from established users, and only the nominator arguing for deletion. Consensus is to keep. MelanieN ( talk) 01:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Hugo E. Martinez (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

A previous AfD in 2014 was closed as no consensus. Articles about LDS officials (just like articles about anything else) need independent sources to pass GNG. That means sources not connected with the LDS Church from where he draws his notability (Deseret News doesn't count; it's hand-and-glove with the LDS Church). Some may claim there's an exception that automatically grants notability to all high-ranking church officials. There is not. Similar officials with similarly-poor sourcing have been deleted. p b p 16:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• I don't buy this statement that a newspaper of the standard of the Deseret News should be discounted as an independent reliable source. There is no evidence that Hugo E. Martinez has any influence over the content of that publication. I'm a pretty militant atheist myself, but that doesn't mean that I think that people with different views shouldn't be covered by an encyclopedia, and very often, whether it's in religion, politics, sport, culture or any academic topic, it's only publications that specialise in a particular field that have coverage of a person. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 19:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep Indeed, the argument about Deseret News's purported lack of independence was just argued and soundly rejected last month at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2016 July 20. Jclemens ( talk) 14:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Soundly? The discussion was closed as no consensus, and the closing admin went rogue in his closure. p b p 22:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment (I decline to vote on LDS matters). Internal publications of a church are likely to be reliable when reporting on matters such as appointment. My impression is that he holds a senior position within LDS organisation, close to that of a bishop in other churches. We have had discussions in the past on LDS officials. It would be useful if WP could provide a definite answer as to how far down the LDS hierarchy people can be presumed to be notable. Peterkingiron ( talk) 13:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Note The template at the top missed the first deletion attempt, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilford W. Andersen (mass nomination), closed 15 July 2014 as no consensus without prejudice to individual renomination. ~ Awilley ( talk) 15:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep Martinez as a General Authority is one of the top leaders of the LDS Church with international leadership standing. In some ways this puts him at a higher grade that a bishop in the Catholic Church, and in many ways closer to the international standing of a Cardinal. The nature of LDS General Conference means that sources such as the BYU Daily Universe not only took note of the fact he was the first to give a talk in this gathering in Spanish, but took note of the subject and message of his talk. This article absolutely should be kept. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply

If being the first to talk to a gathering is so dang important, you should have no problem finding a source that isn't connected with the LDS Church to assert his notability. If he was as important as a Catholic cardinal (which he probably isn't; many Catholic cardinals preside over a number of believers as large as the entire Mormon church), then he'd receive as much non-LDS coverage as Catholic cardinals receive coverage in Catholic publications. p b p 16:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep I agree with the previous comments that have been made. Martinez's position as a General Authority, especially in light of the fact that the Church no longer publicly differentiates between the members of the First and Second Quorums of the Seventy, establishes Martinez as a hierarchically important figure in the LDS Church. Besides, I was under the impression that the Deseret News had been determined to be a reliable source, and I am in the process of working to get all previously deleted articles about those formerly assigned to the Second Quorum of the Seventy restored on these same grounds. I believe that personal prejudice against the LDS Church is motivating these deletion nominations, and I challenge anyone to prove that this is not the case. This article should be kept particularly if this nomination is proven to be based on malicious vituperative dislike of Church topics. What's next? The deletion of all major articles about any LDS leader or topic? Not if you don't want an uprising. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 08:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• There may or may not be prejudice at work here, but to demand that anyone "prove that this is not the case" is unreasonable. That is simply not susceptible to proof. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 09:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Yeah, Jgstokes, it's on you to prove prejudice, not on me to prove lack thereof. There have been a number of discussions on WP:RS/N and related noticeboards as to the independence of Deseret News, and these indicate that a fairly substantial number of editors believe DN to not be independent of the LDS Church. LDS leaders and topics MUST pass the notability standards we have on this page, and if they don't, they should be deleted. This one doesn't. If I find more that don't, I will either tag them with a refimprove tag or nominate them for deletion. p b p 16:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Jgstokes: Please strike your accusations of bad faith. You are in violation of a core Wikipedia behavioral guideline and your accusations and threat of an "uprising" are more damaging to your own credibility than anything anyone else could say. ~ Awilley ( talk) 17:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep – this seems a rerun of similar afds. Some editors believe that the Deseret News is a valid source (including me) and others (including pbp) that it isn't. Wasn't there a drv quite recently? How did that go again? (Oh yes: Octaviano Tenorio – "Endorse there is an overwhelming consensus to endorse the closure as proper" by the drv closer.) These afds seem to have become decidedly pointy. Oculi ( talk) 23:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Lest we forget, the DRV endorsed the close of no consensus. It did not endorse keep. It also is about one article; this is not that article. It did not rewrite SNG or RS guidelines. p b p 00:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply

I think people should be restricted to say 3 contributions per discussion. All these LDS afd discussions are plastered with purple pbp marks, labouring the same point time after time after time. The drv endorsed 'no consensus to delete'. (Pbp makes 41 separate contributions to the afd on Octaviano Tenorio. This is obsessive.) Oculi ( talk) 01:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply

One of four people (two keepists and another person who voted delete) with 20 or more contributions to that AfD. And it's hard to keep your mouth shut when people are leveling personal attacks at you and constantly misconstruing everything you say. You've made your point that you think I comment too much. I'm going to ignore it and keep commenting in discussions I want to comment in. p b p 01:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply

But the DRV did endorse the closing statement that said that the Deseret News can be treated as an independent source for individual Mormons who have no control over its content. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 17:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Eh, not really, at least not specifically. The closest it comes to doing so is saying, "Arguments provided suggested a lack of consensus." Since Deseret News is not mentioned in the closing comments of the DRV, it would suggest there was a lack of consensus on that issue. Besides, anything the DRV decides is applicable only to that one AfD. p b p 19:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply

The DRV close had a consensus endorsing the no-consensus AFD close, which said, "the sources aren't directly connected to the article subject but to an organisation of which he's a part...". No evidence has been provided here that Hugo E. Martinez has any direct connection to the Deseret News, so that consensus applies here. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 20:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Saying that because one article was closed a certain way means that another article was closed a certain way is an inherent WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Unless you can point me to a policy or guideline that says it's OK to source Mormon officials from a Mormon-controlled paper with an unabashed pro-Mormon church stance, the applicability of that close to this AfD is suspect. There was recently a discussion about this at the reliable source noticeboard (not sure if that's the correct forum anyways, because independence, not reliability is the central issue), and it failed to produce a consensus that the Deseret News is independent of Mormon topics. The fact that you and other people dismiss the bias of Deseret News (which, if you read previous AfDs and RSN discussions, is citeable from its own editorial policies) because it is only indirectly controlled by the Mormon church is also troubling. p b p 20:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply

As I have already said twice, the issue is not that the newspaper is owned by the Mormons, but that Hugo E. Martinez has no influence over its content. Try reading what other editors actually say rather than respond to what you think they might have said. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 21:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply

In focusing only on whether Martinez himself controls the DN, you're missing the major problem with the DN in the first place. The problem is that DN is indirectly owned/controlled by the LDS church and that its mission is in part to promote the influence of Hugo Martinez and other people like him (I'd even argue perhaps exaggerate their influence). You're kind of taking it backwards in that your assessment of DN starts with Martinez when it should start with DN. p b p 22:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply

In focusing only on whether Martinez himself controls the DN I'm following the close of the deletion discussion which was resoundingly endorsed by the deletion review linked above. You are entitled to hold a different point of view, but please don't pretend that it has had any consensus support. And it doesn't make any difference what order you take things in. Starting with Hugo. E. Martinez and seeing what he controls doesn't lead to the Deseret News, and starting from the Deseret News and seeing who controls it, and recursing, doesn't lead to Hugo. E. Martinez. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 21:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. MBisanz ^talk 01:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Jann (Dungeons & Dragons) (  | 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 fails to establish notability. TTN ( talk) 15:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 15:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep or merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ ( talk) 03:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Merge per BOZ, but I would suggest Genie (Dungeons & Dragons) as a target: while it doesn't have independent RS yet, I strongly suspect, given the prevalence of Genies in fiction, that enough independent RS can be found to make it a solid standalone article--especially if we merge the other Genie subtypes in as well. Jclemens ( talk) 23:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Merge per Jclemens. Josh Milburn ( talk) 22:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Merge per BOZ. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 03:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Merge and redirect per Jclemens, as this was the original target for this article when it was created as a redirect. Vulcan's Forge ( talk) 01:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Google Street View in Asia#.C2.A0Jordan. MBisanz ^talk 01:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Google Street View in Jordan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

I don't see any encyclopaedic value in keeping this. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information ( WP:IINFO). We are not a directory to store the updates of Google Street View. What next? Google Earth In Jordan? Streetdirectory in Jordan? Areas covered by "x mobile service" in Jordan? This is seriously not required. Delete this for the same reason we don't keep article about software logs. We are not a directory. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 14:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 14:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 14:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 14:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Why Jordan specifically? If you think this type of information is not suitable then nominate all similar articles for deletion. Makeandtoss ( talk) 14:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

What similar articles? -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 14:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Google Street View in the United States ?? Makeandtoss ( talk) 00:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Well, I don't think any of them are notable, but I have been advised previously to only nominate one by one. So we see how this goes first. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 02:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Not encyclopedic. There is no reason to keep this, nor should there be any similar articles of this nature. All that being said, we need to review the rationale for Category:Google Street View. Every single article is exactly like this one - it's a list of what the service covers, which, as far as I'm concerned, is discernable by using the service. MSJapan ( talk) 00:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC) reply

I think there's a need to open a unified discussion for similar articles. Makeandtoss ( talk) 00:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete or Redirect to Google Street View in Asia#.C2.A0Jordan - there is no reason to have this as a standalone article. Epson Salts ( talk) 02:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Downs syndrome. Amended to delete per policy considerations. MBisanz ^talk 01:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

Questionable notability. A person who is "possibly the oldest person with x" does not warrant an article for that reason unless it's picked up on by medical academics or more serious publications than those cited in this article. Josh Milburn ( talk) 14:20, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The claim of being the oldest Downie was made by the nursing home where she lived, an utterly unreliable source. WWGB ( talk) 10:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Downs syndrome. Maybe deserves a mention there, but not warranting an individual article. ~ EDDY ^{( talk/ contribs)}~ 19:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete If this "possible" oldest record was actually notable, we would have better than find a grave (not at all reliable), an article from the paper in the town she lived in and a feel good article from a TV station in the state she lived in. There are just not enough sources to pass GNG. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

Questionable notability. A person who "possibly the oldest person with x in country y" does not warrant an article unless they're picked up on by medical academics or more serious publications than those cited in this article. Josh Milburn ( talk) 14:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete The longest lived person with Downs Syndrome was a bad enough article idea. The longest lived person in the United Kingdom with Downs Syndrome is just taking it too far. What next, longest lived hemophilac before developments of various medical technologies? In this day and age, no one under age 80 is notable for how old they are. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete Per nom and John Pack Lambert , every country will be having longest living patient of a particular disease unless it is significantly covered by medical journals ,mere mention that one is the oldest surviving patient of a disease in a country is not notable.Yes if the subject achieved something in sports ,professional career etc it may be notable but there is nothing of that kind in this case. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 18:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close. Wrong forum.. ( non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

File:S. Dallas Dance White House cropped.jpg (  | [[Talk:File:S. Dallas Dance White House cropped.jpg|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 an official White House photo - doing a simple Google search for S. Dallas Dance images bring up the original version of this photo that came from a leadership conference. The White House borrowed and then cropped the image. It is not an original WH photo, therefore, the copyright does not belong to the U.S. Government and is ineligible to be classified in that manner for free use in Wikipedia. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

This is the wrong place for this. To nominate an image for deletion, use WP: Files for discussion.-- Martin IIIa ( talk) 13:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

Subject appears to be a non-notable runner who promotes "natural medicine" by running across the country. There are a few mentions in small, local newspapers from 2011. The current article has a very promotional tone that is derived mostly from self-published sources close to the subject. At best, notability is due to one event. Delta13C ( talk) 12:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 13:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 13:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 13:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. A non-notable BLP with many unsourced claims. It looks like an advert. QuackGuru ( talk) 09:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- if the sources currently used on the article form the extent of what is available, then this one really does fall below any reasonable threshold. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 11:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete: not notable, fluffy, promotional. Drmies ( talk) 17:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete - I've gone through and trimmed some of the promotional content but the page remains mostly usnourced. Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains ( talk) 23:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Since it was alleged that additional sources will be coming out in the next month, I will userfy the article if requested, so that the additional sources can be added to it. If significant reliable coverage develops, the article can then be considered for reinstatement. MelanieN ( talk) 01:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

This doesn't quite seem to fit any speedy deletion categories, but it is clearly promotion of a non-notable subject. Some guy invents Galactic Tick Day, writes a blog, wants to get a campaign going, and thinks Wikipedia will be good publicity. I can't find any significant coverage of this. Lithopsian ( talk) 10:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete I'll give this the benefit of the doubt and say WP:TOOSOON since the first Tick Day will be on September 26 this year and there's only a single article covering it as of yet. Mr. Magoo ( talk) 10:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 13:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep Disclaimer: I'm David. The event is about a month away and will be picking up steam via ABC news, NowThis, Earth Magazine, and other outlets. If the timing is not right, so be it :) Davidsdavids ( talk) 21:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete violates WP:CRYSTAL. If the topic gets sufficient media attention after the event then notability can be considered, but it would be WP:PROMOTIONAL to include such an article at this point in time. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 00:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep Disclaimer: I'm David. There are now multiple sources, including popular mechanics. Thanks for all your vigilance here! Davidsdavids ( talk) 16:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Struck duplicate !vote above, only one allowed, but feel free to comment all you'd like. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete – not notable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a means of self-promotion. Citobun ( talk) 16:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mackensen (talk) 02:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Kayleigh McEnany (  | 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 frankly would've PRODed if not for the 1st AfD, there:s no inherited notability and frankly nothing at all actually substantial. SwisterTwister talk 02:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• delete (and ideally, redirect to a new list, surrogates for Donald Trump in the 2016 United States presidential election.) There are so many mediocre sources about her that it's hard to tell if strong sources exist; I'd be happy to be proven wrong, if there are in fact good, complete sources that provide the background for a reasonable bio. However, it would be worthwhile for a Wikipedia reader to be able to find a basic answer to the question "who is Kayleigh Mcenany?" A list could address that neatly (for her and for others). - Pete ( talk) 23:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• comment after reviewing prior AFD: That was 4 years ago. As a prominent (daily?) Trump surrogate on CNN, her notability has surely increased in the last year. I don't know that she's had the kind of coverage that would merit a WP bio, but she's certainly closer now than she was when the previous AFD took place. - Pete ( talk) 23:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Don't delete. Face it. However much you may dislike the fact, she clearly meets the notability criteria. She is prominently mentioned in a Washington post article [18]. Clearly a very strong source. The notability standard also states that many less strong sources can make up for the lack of stronger sources. She also appears in well over a hundred sources in all. I got 563 hits on Google Books. She appears often on a major network. You may not like, and you may not like her, but that is not the standard. She is notable. Tesint ( talk) 04:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • No, that is not the standard--the standard is there be significant discussion in reliable sources of the subject. Drmies ( talk) 16:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment She's in the news a lot. I added some sources and took out the unsourced (and biased) material and moved it to the talk page. Hopefully that will help anyone trying to make a decision about her. I'm on the fence, myself, about her notability. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 19:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep - I have several more articles that talk about McEnany:

http://m.townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2016/05/10/dana-loesch-torches-trump-mouth-piece-kayleigh-mcenany-n2160652

http://www.law.miami.edu/news/2014/july/classroom-newsroom-rising-2l-kayleigh-mcenany-appears-tv-guest-political-commentator

https://www.rawstory.com/2016/08/kayleigh-mcenany-trump-tailored-message-to-blacks-white-rally/

Yoshiman6464 ( talk) 00:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete unless someone wants to do a WP:HEY and improve the article to demonstrate notability. As it sits, she's not terribly notable other than for her employer, WP:NOTINHERITED applies here. That said, if the article is actually improved, I'm willing to consider changing my vote. Montanabw ^(talk) 16:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Yet another pundit who shows up on TV, but who isn't significant enough to have received decent coverage and in-depth discussion. From the cited articles one could construct a three-page biography, at the best; the additionally listed sources here don't do much better. The Townhall.com article is nothing but a brief comment on a video placed on a conservative website, the MiamiLaw article has content but is not a newspaper (it's an alumni magazine, basically), and the Raw Story article is nothing but commentary on a TV appearance by the subject. Plus, it's Raw Story. So, no--this doesn't help. Drmies ( talk) 16:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Response to latest "Delete"

Wikipedia Notability Standard:

"People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6] If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability."

Nothing that Drmies writes refutes any of the sources provided by Yoshiman. The notability standard says nothing against a brief comment - that does not make it trivial. There is no requirement that a source be a newspaper. There nothing against "Raw Story". So, by the standard, it does help, however unnecessary it might be, because she would be notable anyway. Tesint ( talk) 21:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC) reply

From the deletion criteria: "When an article is nominated for deletion, the Wikipedia community may discuss its merits for a period usually no less than seven days, in order to come to a public rough consensus about whether the article is unsuited to Wikipedia. Following seven days of discussion, an experienced Wikipedian will determine if a consensus was reached and will "close" the discussion accordingly." OK. We have gone way longer than seven days. There is clearly no consensus for deletion. It is time for this discussion to be closed and for the "nominated for speedy deletion banner to be removed." Tesint ( talk) 15:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Further, from the speedy deletion criteria: "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. If a page has survived its most recent deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations and pages that meet specific uncontroversial criteria; these criteria are noted below. Contributors sometimes create pages over several edits, so administrators should avoid deleting a page that appears incomplete too soon after its creation." Tesint ( talk) 15:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The coverage is very minor. The notability standard certainly says something about a brief comment: it requires "significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail " Before making claims about what WP:N says, it helps to actually read it. In detail. DGG ( talk ) 22:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Home page. MBisanz ^talk 01:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Start page (  | 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 concept. The references given do not distinguish between home page or "start page". Google searches show very little actual hits despite a large initial number the hits disappear after around 400. noq ( talk) 22:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Too similar to home page— references don't support article, just supporting points. Margalob ( talk) 20:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Redirect Merge to Home page. Same concept entirely. Mr. Magoo ( talk) 11:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment: The concepts as described are different: "start page" is the page shown when opening a browser, and "home page" is the page shown when visiting a particular website. At least per the articles. The question seems to be whether the "start page" concept is notable, about which I have no opinion.  Sandstein  07:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • My apologies for not reading that article thoroughly, but when I searched for "home page," the first result was Google suggesting me to make Google my home page. The second result was our article. The third result was Mozilla instructing on how to set your home page. The next results seemed to be the kind of home pages our article refers to but without a mention of the term. In the news it seemed to always describe a browser's starting page: [19], [20], [21] and [22]. I had trouble with "Home Page Media Group," however. I think a merge of the terms is in order because they're used so indistinguishably. Mr. Magoo ( talk) 10:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Internet Explorer describes the initial page as a home page, as do Firefox and Safari. Chrome describes it as a starting page. None of those browsers call it the Start page. noq ( talk) 11:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete or redirect - The only instance I know of homes pages being referred to as 'Start page' is in German where a 'Home' page is called "Startseite'. Maybe a redirect is the answer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 08:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to home page: It's very simlar of those named as "Start pages". KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 11:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment There is a clear difference between home page and start (or startup) page in a browser; starting up the browser takes you to the start page and pressing the browser home button gets you to the home page. [23] Both of those are different in concept from a home page of a web site. In principle, I would be OK with a merge, but merging all three into one article is likely to cause confusion, unless these different concepts are carefully explained. -- Mark viking ( talk) 20:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Not sure it is that clear. Most modern browsers support multiple tabs and the initial page(s) can be set to re-open the last pages displayed before the browser was last shut. And the start page concept described here is not the same but is more a web portal. Expanding the concept of the home page article to show this is probably a good thing but having additional articles for each possible use is overkill. noq ( talk) 22:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • The source you linked to was Chrome's guide. noq wrote before that Chrome is the sole one to call it starting page. Mr. Magoo ( talk) 11:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to home page per above. It's not synonymous, no, but there's no reason it couldn't just be a line at web browser. The separate concept of a service/site intended to act as one's start page is just web portal, but given that "start page" has multiple meanings, home page seems the likeliest redirect target. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Home page after delete. Concept not individually notable. K.e.coffman ( talk) 22:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. More recent discussion has brought evidence of notability. Whether this can be done by hand does not bear relevance to notability, as pointed out by others. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

It exists, but I can find no sign it is WP:NOTABLE Boleyn ( talk) 09:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment I can't even.-- Savonneux ( talk) 09:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Undecided. Merge to Christmas tree. Cursory source searches are not providing enough coverage to qualify a standalone article. However, this is a valid search term, so redirection is appropriate, and the merge target article presently has no mention of this aspect of the topic. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment That sounds like a sensible solution. Boleyn ( talk) 12:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• ( edit conflict) Merge per above. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 12:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply