Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 1 July 3 July >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton |  Talk 03:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Michelle Camaclang

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

after removing all the self-serving, dead, blog and PROMO references and their unsupported claims, what's left is completely lacking in notability sirlanz 22:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Deleted as G12 (copyright violation) Content copied from multiple online sources. — Diannaa ( talk) 00:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply

The Hindu Religion FAQ's

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

Simply put, this should be deleted per WP:NOTFAQ. This is a contested PROD. Imzadi 1979  → 23:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply

I'm in the process of doing changes in the answers, and also the references. The idea behind creating a different format for article was that it address common questions i.e. it serves as a one stop solution for all the common questions. User:Imzadi1979 can you please cite individual points where you think I have done some mistake. Can you give us some time(4-5 days) for improving the article. Yogesh.atray ( talk) 23:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - This type of article is not appropriate for Wikipedia, at best it could be merged into the article on Hinduism but that will require effort, the following choice quote should explain the issue with a merger "the science of Krishna consciousness". Per nomination, WP:NOTFAQ, the prose is also very WP:ESSAY like. Mr rnddude ( talk) 00:13, 3 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. MBisanz talk 01:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Tony Muilenburg

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

Does not pass WP:PROF or WP:N guidelines. The subject is an adjunct professor with no notable achievements inside or outside of academics. The assertion of significance through the video tutorials appears moot as the tutorials are self published. ERK talk 21:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply


Hey, I think WP:Prof should be okay. The idea was to help with the WikiProject Universities effort, and in fact, we would like to list multiple professors like other universities do.

The education hardware professor Muilenburg developed is being used at both OSU and PSU, and the material he teaches at PSU is unique and highly valued. Also, he has tens of thousands of hits on youtube for the video tutorials. I added a few more references that were not self published. Muilenta ( talk) 23:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks again for the useful feedback as I'm new to posting.

  • Weak Keep. According to his faculty page, [1] he's an adjunct professor not professor. There's a difference. But more important, that shows that he's he;s a senior engineer at Intel. That's his main career; his work at PSU is, as the title says, an adjunct to that. (even if the inexperienced editor didn;t realize it or mention it in the article). It's very difficult to judge such careers, and I'd be inclined to give the article the benefit of the doubt , because we do recognize contributions to educational programs as part of WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Comment It appears the article's creator is the subject or closely related. Another editor pointed out the WP:COI on the creator's talk page. While his main career is as a senior engineer at Intel, I don't believe that's enough to satisfy criteria #7 of WP:PROF, as there's nothing to suggest his position at Intel carries any notability. I can't find anything that comes close to satisfying any of the other criteria. -- ERK talk 05:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

I have cleaned up the article quite a bit. I looked at pages of some other professors, and modeled after those. Thanks again for the constructive feedback Muilenta ( talk) 21:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 06:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF (in particular, no significant citations found on Google scholar, for work in a high-citation subject) and the article's sources do not provide evidence for passing WP:GNG. Only references 6-8 (Oregonian, Nanoelectronics, and Rhizome) look both reliable and sufficiently independent of the subject, and none of those provides the in-depth coverage requested by GNG. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. Appears to have no publications (nothing shows on G-scholar), nor does he seem to have furthered an area of research. Being a senior engineer at Intel isn't one of the criteria - it's a job title that probably many hold. LaMona ( talk) 21:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Edge Studio

Edge Studio (  | 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 company. No in-depth or significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. ( ?) No worthwhile redirect targets. czar 22:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 23:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 23:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply

TAJ Productions

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

Exact recreation of a previously deleted article. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. ( ?) There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 22:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 22:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Derek Hutch

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

NN criminal, WP:NOTINHERITED. MSJapan ( talk) 21:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 22:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 22:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 22:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, subject has convictions for: 1. manslaughter, 2. armed robbery (with a sentence of sixteen years, a heavy sentence by Irish standards). He is also a high-security prisoner. Autarch ( talk) 22:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep But it's complicated. There are 2 Irish criminals named "Derek Hutch" The one in this article is a nephew of "Monk" Hutch. "Monk" Hutch also has a brother named Derek Hutch, a convicted rapist and thief who committed suicide in 2009 at age 44. His funeral was protected by police who anticipated that "hit squads" targeting other members of the family. My proquest archives search on "Derek Hutch" turns up more than enough to support articles on the brother and on the nephew of "Monk" Hutch. The British and, especially, the Irish press have covered both intensively over the years. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 19:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Amber Doig-Thorne

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

Attempted to research Amber Doig-Thorne and only was able to produce results for the viral "Boyfriend VS Girlfriend" videos; not able to locate any significance of Amber herself. WP:NWEB indicates that fame does not establish notability and that significant independent sources need to cover the established topic. This article fails to meet that criteria, therefore I nominate this article for deletion. This article failed a prior CSD:A7; therefore nominating via AfD. Dane2007 ( talk) 21:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - other than the videos, "celebrity" has no other credibility other than school and university events. Cannot find any information on premieres or dancing and modelling. Citations are self made sites and does not cohere with the information given about real celebrities. Almost appears self-made. I have also searched the celebrities on whole wiki celeb [2] which is "celebrities" like Amber and if this page requires a wikipedia page then also do all of the unknown social media personalities that have also managed to get a page on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prettyallen123 ( talk • contribs) 14:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete; wholly agree with above. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Uanfala ( talk) 19:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Linear number

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

Unsourced neologism for the natural numbers, considered as a degenerate special case of figurate numbers. This was prodded by Wcherowi with the comment "Unsourced and not notable" and then deprodded by Kvng with the comment "Consider merge to Figurate number" but I agree with Wcherowi. Without sources and without notability there is nothing to merge. So I think the better outcome is just to delete this. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
(1) only if the term is mentioned in the latter article (which should get done if it hasn't been done yet and if it's appropriate) and
(2) only if one can either show that this term has some currency or if one can show that the use of the terms has been proposed in the literature (in which latter can it should say only that's it's been proposed or suggested).
Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. It's not actually a proposed synonym of natural number, but rather a proposed name for natural-number-as-a-degenerate-special-case-of-figurate-numbers. Mathematicians' conventions for definitions fall short of encompassing that kind of definition in a regular way. Maybe that will change in the future. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • delete. No indication this is anything other than a neologism and hoax.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 19:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • delete. agree with the above — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.155.181 ( talk) 19:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Triangular number or gnomon (figure). I added four sources to the article. This term has been used before in in discussion of triangular numbers, and there is a connection to Pythagoras. In sum total, the sources I found are not in enough depth to satisfy notability, but a few basics seem verifiable. The term as used here, is the gnomon of triangular numbers, so it would make sense to either merge just the initial paragraph to triangular number or gnomon (figure). -- Mark viking ( talk) 20:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC) Update David Eppstein has thrown doubt on the Deza sources, so that just leaves the Gazalé book. I was comfortable merging with multiple RS, but not just a single such source. The historical triangular gnomon should probably be mentioned somewhere, but not as a linear number. Without sufficient sourcing, delete. -- Mark viking ( talk) 19:03, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I agree with JohnBlackburne—made-up names should not be elevated to redirects unless good sources indicate the term has been used. Johnuniq ( talk) 02:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply
What problems did you find with the Deza or Gazalé book sources? Thanks, -- Mark viking ( talk) 03:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Deza's "Encyclopedia of Distances" has text copied from Wikipedia and shouldn't be used as a source per WP:CIRCULAR, but I don't know of such problems with the figurate number book. — David Eppstein ( talk) 03:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The Gazalé book has one mention of the term: "The order n linear number is none other than n itself, and its gnomon is 1." That does not establish notability. Johnuniq ( talk) 05:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Thanks for your replies. I've changed my recommendation. -- Mark viking ( talk) 19:03, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Except there is no attempt to mislead anyone here or play around with and repackage characteristics ? Eno Lirpa ( talk) 12:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 03:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Lyrical Wanzam

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

PROD removed by page's creator. Subject lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains ( talk) 17:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Uanfala ( talk) 19:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Minimal discussion, so calling this a WP:SOFTDELETE -- RoySmith (talk) 11:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Jim Wallace (politician)

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

Local councillor and non-notable political candidate. Political positions held are not notable. No reliable 3rd party sources that are outside of his standing a candidate. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Tassedethe ( talk) 16:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Uanfala ( talk) 19:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Uanfala ( talk) 19:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Bill Randall

Bill Randall (  | 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 political candidate. No reliable 3rd party sources that are outside of his standing a candidate. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Tassedethe ( talk) 16:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Uanfala ( talk) 19:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Uanfala ( talk) 19:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Unelected candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates. Either you must show and properly source that he was already notable enough for an article on some other basis independent of his candidacy itself, or he doesn't get an article until he wins election to a notable office. Plus, for added bonus, I just checked its "what links here", and five of the six links were expecting different people. Delete, and restore the original redirect to W. J. Randall. Bearcat ( talk) 18:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply

God Complex The Audio Drama

God Complex The Audio Drama (  | 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 with no reliable secondary sources, only primary ones. Does not appear to meet any of the criteria of WP:BKCRIT. McGeddon ( talk) 16:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Uanfala ( talk) 19:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I searched, but couldn't find anything to show that this webcomic would pass notability guidelines on Wikipedia. Notability for webcomics is incredibly hard to assert, as they're rarely covered in places that Wikipedia would consider reliable. Popularity or longevity don't really count for anything on Wikipedia, since neither guarantee notability. I feel for the webcomic, but it just doesn't pass notability guidelines on here at present. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Relisting has established a consensus to delete at this time. KaisaL ( talk) 23:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Nichigo

Nichigo (  | 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 just seems like an arbitrary list. The ideas in the top description could be included in some relevant article, but we don't need a list based on what day of the week a show originally aired; there's no specific characteristics of say a Saturday show vs a Sunday show, it's just a time slot. -- Kraftlos ( Talk | Contrib) 04:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Kraftlos ( Talk | Contrib) 04:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Late night television notes that "Japan's late night programming is reserved for late night anime", but I don't see why this deserves its own article, especially for the timeslot of a specific channel. (If anything, it could be mentioned on anime) Searching for the term does not unearth any substantial coverage on the timeslot. It notes that several famous anime aired during it, but notability is not inherited. Additionally, the list of shows that aired seems to be indiscriminate and the navbox doesn't really show a strong relation between the articles other than them having aired at the same time, defeating its purpose as a navigational aid. Opencooper ( talk) 07:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The block is usually mentioned in several English anime-related sites, and even more on Japanese sites, to the point of having its own Japanese wiki page (with templates and everything). This must mean something in terms of notability. Exukvera ( talk) 20:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This really depends on whether it's a specific programming block and whether that block is notable in itself like Toonami. If it is, then the list of programming can be formatted in different ways depending on sourcing. At the simplest it should be a bullet list of shows with the Toonami main page, which can be easily sourced. More elaborate schemes like List of programs broadcast by Toonami should only be considered if there are detailed sources. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 14:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Please make sure it isn't listings like WP:NOTTVGUIDE though. The only reason Toonami's is so detailed is because of its sourcing and regular announcements, even then the older entries remain as lists. It can also be just a simpler list saying when it premiered and doesn't need all that detail about how many episodes or when it went off the air. It doesn't need the descriptions of each program. See: List of programs broadcast by Toon Disney. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 14:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL ( talk) 16:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Charles H. Cochrane

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

Minimally sourced biography of a person notable mainly as the first member of the New York City police force to come out as gay. Granted, he seems to have done it early enough -- one of the two sources is dated 1981 -- that there's a small element of surprise to this, but being the first openly gay person in an otherwise non-notable role is not in and of itself grounds for an encyclopedia article, if the fact of his sexuality is literally all that can actually be said about him. Besides that article from 1981, the only other source here is about a group of gay cops requesting that a city street be named for him after his death -- but there's no indication whatsoever that the request was successful. If he could be sourced over WP:GNG for this then things might be different, but the volume of sourcing on display here doesn't demonstrate that he's earned a place in an international encyclopedia. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 22:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply

  • According to an article in the June 15, 2016 Daily News, he's getting "Charles Cochrane Way" named after him in Greenwich Village tomorrow (Friday, June 17). The article is unclear about exactly where this will be, and whether it is only a corner or some part of a street. [3] The Gay Officers Action League website identifies the renamed location as "the intersection of Washington Place and the Avenue of the Americas" [4]: this intersection is also the location of the Church of St. Joseph in Greenwich Village. We should watch for coverage over the next few days to see if this ceremony yields additional material in reliable sources about Sgt. Cochrane. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 22:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted as an attempt to find sources is ongoing. @ Lemongirl942: Please report back on your further findings. KaisaL ( talk) 16:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL ( talk) 16:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Once we are getting New York city streets named after a subject, reported in the mainstream press (see THIS), GNG is fulfilled. Carrite ( talk) 18:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Here's another source counting to GNG, unfortunately blocked by a paywall by Newspapers.com: "Policeman Emerges from Threat to Limelight," Arizona Republic [Phoenix], Jan. 10, 1982, pg. 49 — extensive article about Cochrane, with photograph. Carrite ( talk) 18:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply
There is also an article, similarly paywalled by Newspapers.com, from the Poughkeepsie Journal, Oct. 10, 1984, pg. 23. Not quite sure the article title of that one, but coverage of Cochrane is substantial and mention is made of a story about him in the New York Post. Carrite ( talk) 18:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Ah, here we go, one we can actually see: Sharon Rosenthal, "New York Policeman Came Out of the Closet, Into the Spotlight," New York Daily News. Reprinted in the Lakeland Ledger, Jan. 3, 1982, pg. 6A. Carrite ( talk) 18:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note also another New York Daily News Article which is showing in fully readable form as a graphic attached to the New York Daily News article mentioned above. List this as: Mary Ann Giordano, "I Am Proud of Being Gay: Cop; Asks Passage of Rights Bill," New York Daily News, Nov. 21, 1981, pg. ???. Carrite ( talk) 20:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • As I have greatly expanded this stub article, I'll ping the nominator, Bearcat, and another commenter that I missed, Arxiloxos, for their reconsideration as well. Carrite ( talk) 20:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The article has been significantly improved by Carrite. GNG is clearly met. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:40, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, Carrite demonstrated notability, WP:HEY applies. Also, a look at Google Books suggests there is a lot more potential sources, even if offline link. Vague and copypasted pile-on delete votes by the usual suspects should be ignored. Cavarrone 07:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I am usually not in favour of articles of people post 1960s where the only claim of significance is the subject's gender/orientation/religion. However, over here I find 2 claims which ensures that this is not a BLP1E
  1. The coverage has enough depth. [5], [6], [7], [8], [9].
  2. The coverage is not a one time event and there seems to be repeated coverage once in several years. There is some impact of the subject's work. This passes GNG
  3. The subject is recognized for being the co-founder of GOAL and his contributions have been deemed to be notable by the congress as it elected to name a street after him.
This is a clear keep. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 09:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Machine (film)

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Tagged for notability and sources since December 2008. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 16:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Uanfala ( talk) 19:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Looking beyond the nominated article:
theatrical release year/type:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
DVD release year/type:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
filmmaker:(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)
Brazil:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Portugal:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I am satisfied after a third relist that there is a consensus to delete here, particularly after one of the most thorough contributors to the debate returned to put their weight toward a delete. KaisaL ( talk) 23:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Rigamajig

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

Fails GNG John from Idegon ( talk) 15:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

In analyzing Wikipedia's GNG I can attest to Rigamajig's legitimacy

  • "Significant coverage": There are multiple articles in the resources and external links that cover Rigamajig. Additional accolades include: [ Museum], [ The Hot Potato], [ Easton Children's Museum], [ Rogers Memorial Museum Children’s Museum
  • "Reliable" and "Secondary Sources": Rigamajig's references includes primary (creator and official websites) in addition to secondary sources. More news articles that capture Rigamajig's functions can be located: [ Chattanoogan.com], [ Island Monthly], [ Blue Ridge Now
  • "Independent of the Source": As previously mentioned, facts of Rigamajig can also be found in secondary sources
  • "Presumed": The sheer number and dominance in the Google search for the keyword "Rigamajig" provides the safe assumption that Rigamajig is worth covering in Wikipedia's literature.

To help provide a higher quality Wikipedia Article, It would be helpful to understand the specifics as to why Rigamajig fails the GNGuidelines. Please respond with a rationale. Thank you, Caterooni ( talk) 16:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will relist this again as the wealth of research into this subject appears to have been from a user that did not make any clear indication of their views. @ Coolabahapple: Would you like to revisit this debate? KaisaL ( talk) 16:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL ( talk) 16:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Both the sources brought forth by the article's creator and by Coolabahapple seem to me to be based on press releases, rendering them not appropriate for showing notability. My opinion on that is certainly subject to debate, but there seems a considerable similarity in all of them. Comments? John from Idegon ( talk) 20:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, on reflection, i should have said "probably notable", i would have been happy with this being redirected with a sentence or two to an appropriate article like 'Large construction toys', unfortunately there isn't one, i agree with John from Idegon, that some of the sources can be seen as promotional, so may not be useable. Although this looks like a great educational product, it does not quite meet WP:GNG, and so should be Delete. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete To be fair, there are a few references which show that this "educational toy" is being used in certain places. But I haven't found the indepth sources required for keeping the article. Stuff like toys actually take a long time to become notable - this usually happens when some scholarly works reference the toy. This seems like a WP:TOOSOON to me at this moment. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 17:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep based on the Blue Ridge Now and Rogers Museum sources - which, I note, are not on the article page. BlackcurrantTea ( talk) 19:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 14:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Qriket

Qriket (  | 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 is written overly like an advertisement and has only one article about it from a notable source, appears to me this is not deep enough coverage to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. EoRdE6( Come Talk to Me!) 20:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional contributions over the next week would be welcome. KaisaL ( talk) 16:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL ( talk) 16:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I don't see sources meeting WP:CORPDEPTH, most of what's there, even the TechCrunch piece, fails at independence with quite a bit of it looking like material generated from a press release. That was my sense of the two Japanese-language sources I attempted to assess using automated translation as well. -- joe decker talk 16:43, 2 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 soft delete Beach Run per low participation herein and no consensus ( WP:NPASR) for Beach Walking per low participation herein. The delete !vote later in the discussion appears to only be referring to the initial Beach Run article in the nomination, per use of singular grammar ("its own notability"), rather than plural, which would pertain to both articles. North America 1000 08:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Beach Run

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

Also nominated: Beach Walking

Both "Beach Run" and "Beach Walking" seem to be non-notable categories of sport. Almost all references on the web to its "governing body" that I see on Google seem to be spam type links. While there seem to be many references on the web to the concept of running on the beach or 5Ks that are held on beaches, there doesn't seem to be any notability to the concept as its own category of sport. only ( talk) 08:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. The International Life Saving Federation, with its different sports specialties (Beach Run, etc), are recognized by the International Olympic Committee.

http://www.ilsf.org/about/recognition/ioc

Beach Run (International Life Saving Federation)

http://www.ilsf.org/lifesaving-sport/disciplines/beach-run

http://www.ilsf.org/lifesaving-sport/disciplines

-- Beach run do ( talk) 10:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC) — Beach run do ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

  • As I said on the Simple English Wikipedia RFD, that provides notability for the organization, but not for the sport. The sports of the ILSF that seem to be the sports they're recognized for are their life saving sports, not their beach running. only ( talk) 13:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 17:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 02:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This has been a quiet debate so far. The only arguments to keep have come from a one-subject editor heavily invested in the subject, however there has also been too little on the other side for me to reasonably close this as a delete for either article. More contributions would be appreciated. KaisaL ( talk) 15:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL ( talk) 15:50, 2 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 speedily deleted under criterion G11. As per the below, this should in no way be considered to prohibit creation of a neutral, appropriate article on this individual. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Krishan Lal Chugh

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

No references Prof TPMS ( talk) 11:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply

PLEASE DO NOT DELETE , the article has recently gone through many corrections and additions made by me. I am direct relative and have added factually correct information. The information does not disrupt any guidelines.additionally, Mr. K.L Chugh is well reknowned and respected in India and the page does a good job of highlighting his involvements and awards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.69.57.177 ( talk) 13:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 16:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 16:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – The article is tagged for speedy deletion per WP:G11, and in its present state it will likely be deleted per this. However, the subject actually meets WP:BASIC (see some source examples below). As such, no prejudice against recreation of a neutral article based upon what reliable sources report about the subject. North America 1000 06:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The references listed by User:Northamerica1000 suggest that this subject may indeed be notable, and in light of these it would be amiss for me to close this as a delete just yet. Please also remember that poor sourcing/quality of content within an article does not a lack of notability make; See WP:NEXIST. More thoughts would be appreciated over the next seven days. KaisaL ( talk) 15:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL ( talk) 15:41, 2 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. MBisanz talk 01:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Michael Turchin

Michael Turchin (  | 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 both WP:NACTOR as well as the fact that his notability is inherited, just because he married Lance Bass. — IB [ Poke ] 15:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Uanfala ( talk) 19:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Uanfala ( talk) 19:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to National Defence Academy (India)#Air_Force. MBisanz talk 01:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply

NDA Gliderdrome

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

Failure of WP:GNG. Not a notable airport (not an airport primarily). It is just a runway for the gliders which are used to train the cadets of Indian Air Force at the National Defence Academy in basics of gliding. The information regarding this is already mentioned in the the Air Force training section in the NDA article. KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 15:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 10:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 10:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Support. I created this article a long time ago when I was new to Wikipedia. Since the Gliderdrome is already mentioned in the main article, a stub page is redundant and should therefore be deleted. Rishabh Tatiraju ( talk) 05:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Rizwan Niaz Raiyan

Rizwan Niaz Raiyan (  | 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 player has made no appearance in a first-class, List A or T20 match and so it is that he is not meeting the notability criteria Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 15:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce ( talk) 18:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce ( talk) 18:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce ( talk) 18:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 ( talk) 07:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 ( talk) 07:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 ( talk) 07:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KaisaL ( talk) 01:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Synchcom Private Limited

Synchcom Private Limited (  | 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 small company. The sources provided are all directory-like, associated or simply fail to mention the subject. My searches found nothing better. Furthermore, none of the claims made in the article, if verified, would tend to lead to coverage and notability. Happy Squirrel ( talk) 15:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Uanfala ( talk) 19:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Uanfala ( talk) 19:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Tanvir Hassan Zoha

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

WP:BLP1E. Subject disappeared after a heist, reappeared, and so far, that's it. NeilN talk to me 14:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 09:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 09:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 09:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 09:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply
24.246.23.7 ( talk) 23:41, 4 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. MBisanz talk 01:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Matt Granite

Matt Granite (  | 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 was created by a blocked sock puppeteer/paid editor, and has not received substantial edits by other users. As the article was created before he/she was caught (but well after the abuse started), it doesn't qualify for CSD. I proposed deletion but it was deprodded on the basis of winning an Emmy Award, as claimed in the article. Of course, if you actually follow the refs, you see that it's not an Emmy Award but a "Lower Great Lakes Emmy Award". Needless to say, that does not confer notability. Fails WP:GNG. If there's a surprising claim to notability, I'd still suggest this be WP:TNTed given the context, and recreated from scratch. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is very tough and there's probably a good case for keeping the article as well. The Lower Great Lakes Emmy Award certainly isn't a sign of notability, but the fact he's appeared on USA Today and some other bits do start to create a case. Given the story behind the creation of the article, though, I am inclined to suggest deletion. KaisaL ( talk) 17:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep Delete/Keep decisions are based on whether a subject is notable and not on its article history. USA Today considers him to be a notable expert in his field per this and this, for example. WGN also considers him an expert [13]. Other sources provide a biographical sketch.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply
    • USA Today writes about his expertise because he's an employee of USA Today. We need sources independent of the subject. I guess an interview on an AM radio station helps, but working for USA Today does not -- we'd need more articles like the WGN one about him/his work (preferably better than WGN). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I find nothing about him to use as a reference. Everything I find is either his own work, or others picking up on the "deals" he broadcasts or writes about. Those are not about him, and there's nothing substantial about them - just where to get the lowest prices on various products. LaMona ( talk) 22:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete winning a local emmy does not make someone notable. Having under 150,000 Youtube followers almost seems like a sign you are not notable, clearly not one you are. We have no even moderately outside sources, and having some of his work published in non-local publications does not change the failure to even appraoch notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Michig ( talk) 07:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Hermann Parzinger

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

WP:BLP of the president of an organization, consisting only of a single statement that he exists and sourced only to a glancing namecheck of his existence in an article that isn't about him. While this could be enough to qualify someone for an article if the sourcing and substance were solid, it's not an automatic inclusion freebie that entitles a person to a standalone article if this is all that can be said or sourced about him. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 13:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Uanfala ( talk) 19:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Uanfala ( talk) 19:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Article passes subject specific guideline as having both played in a fully professional league and having played seniior international football. No reasonable rationale for delete is foreseeable. Fenix down ( talk) 07:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Gaëtan Missi Mezu

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

Player that does not meet WP:NFOOTY, almost certainly a case of WP:TOOSOON. Listing because he has been called up to the Gabon national team, I can't find evidence that he played, but if he did it would allow his inclusion. (The call-up alone would not be enough.) KaisaL ( talk) 12:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 21:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Concerned Criminals Action Committee

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

Notability not established, and is not even mentioned in the Martin Cahill article. It doesn't seem like it lasted long enough to matter in the grand scheme of Cahill's gang activities, as it was in and out in a year. The first source is a trivial mention in a book, and the rest of the article summarizes the other source poorly, so I'll bet that the article content doesn't really reflect the sources, thus WP:TNT applies, and it's not worth keeping. MSJapan ( talk) 05:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 00:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Your first source doesn't even mention CCAC, which is why I wish you would really stop just pasting URLs in and claiming notability is met, because you're clearly not reading the sources, and hoping that because you said keep, the article will be kept. In short, your first source doesn't mention CCAC, the second article about Martin Foley gives it two sentences, and the third is a simple namedrop in an article about a film about Martin Cahill. Well, just because these guys were involved with it because they started it, it's a biographical detail for them, not a standalone article for CCAC. Your bar for notability is well out of line with established policy. MSJapan ( talk) 18:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The first source mentions Concerned Parents Against Drugs which I had created a redirect to this article for. ~ Kvng ( talk) 22:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
So the first source does not cover this topic, I can't access the second one, and the third one falls short of significant coverage in my opinion, consisting of one very short paragraph about the topic ( link for editors without highbeam acounts). WP:GNG requires significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, I fail to see how your sources satisfy that requirement, even if the second source is good. Quasihuman ( talk •  contribs) 15:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Without changing the title, I have expanded the scope of the article to include Concerned Criminals Action Committee and Concerned Parents Against Drugs. Here are the relevant excerpts from the second source:

Along with Cahill, Foley faced down Concerned Parents Against Drugs - which Cahill's gang claimed was wrongly accusing "ordinary decent criminals" of drug dealing - by establishing the absurdly titled Concerned Criminals Action Committee.

In 1984, when the Concerned Parents Against Drugs group wrongly blamed Foley and his associates of dealing drugs, Martin Cahill established the Concerned Criminal Action Committee. Led by Foley, it marched on the homes of members of the parents' group. Eventually a truce was called between the two groups, after Foley was sent to negotiate with the parents' group, which had been infiltrated by republican elements.

~ Kvng ( talk) 14:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 06:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Reposting the same three sources Kvng posted earlier (and which were already dealt with as trivial by two other editors) a second time does not suddenly make them "great sources and indicators of notability." MSJapan ( talk) 13:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Gary Glitter discography. MBisanz talk 01:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Through the Years (Gary Glitter song)

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

Non-notable song. Unreferenced since October 2006. The IP user 82.45.239.158 reverted the redirection to Gary Glitter by Mattg82. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 04:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 15:50, 25 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 06:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect. It did chart, but only at #49 which is a low showing. There is little to say about it, so a redirect is the common outcome if there isn't much to say about the song. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 07:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete In the UK it is generally accepted that the Top 40 is the relevant chart so in order to be notable for its position, it needs to be in that. This does not qualify. KaisaL ( talk) 11:44, 2 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. MBisanz talk 01:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply

American Spirit Arms

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

Lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Doesn't appear to pass WP:CORP Niteshift36 ( talk) 18:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Bradford, Harry (January 8, 2016). "Gunmaker Accuses Bank Of America Of Freezing Its Accounts". The Huffington Post. Retrieved June 17, 2013. is a reliable secondary source that goes into enough detail about the company for it to meet the general notability guideline.— Godsy( TALK CONT) 21:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I misspoke. How about WP:ROUTINE? Essentially, there is a lawsuit, some news coverage that there was a lawsuit (ie routine coverage) and essentially no coverage about the company itself, the subject of the article. This would be akin to a small tire shop suing Goodyear for a quality issue and because someone wrote the Goodyear was being sued, we now try to call the tire shop notable. If the lawsuit were some sort of landmark decision, of course that would be different. Niteshift36 ( talk) 17:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • That guideline would apply if the article were about the event that the reference I provided covers, but it isn't, it is about a company. The company is addressed in that independent reliable source directly and in detail with more than a trivial mention making no original necessary. That allows the topic to meet the the general notability guideline, it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.— Godsy( TALK CONT) 17:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • The source article has 5 paragraphs. 1 of those is about another company and one is the bank's response. One is an introduction, telling us who is involved (Am Spirit and BoA) and that there's a suit. 1 sentence of the second paragraph tells about the company and one paragraph is the response of the owner (one sentence). At the most generous, the article contains 3 sentences about the company. Since GNG says "significant coverage" and "...multiple sources are generally expected", I'm curious how a single source, devoting about 3 sentences to the topic, gets past GNG? Niteshift36 ( talk) 19:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I disagree that the Huffington Post article is enough to show that this is a notable company. It barely mentions the company. The company hasn't done anything remarkable or noteworthy. Felsic2 ( talk) 15:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo ( talk) 01:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 06:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The Huffington Post article is essentially about a "facebook post made by the owner of the company" and the company itself gets half-a-sentence coverage. I had a look and realised that other coverage about this company in questionable sources is essentially a rehash of the same. This fails WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG which requires a significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 17:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete GNG says multiple sources, we maybe, but proabably not, have one. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The scarce participation with no semblance of a consensus makes it impossible to close this in any direction. A bold editor may consider the option to merge. KaisaL ( talk) 01:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Memory Records

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

We don't have record label notability guidelines, but given that the label lasted all of six years and the sources given aren't RS, GNG is not met. MSJapan ( talk) 00:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  05:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  05:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MSJapan ( talk) 00:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 06:13, 2 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. MBisanz talk 01:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Central Solar Reserve Bank of Accompong

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

Inadequate evidence for actual existence. See Talk:Accompong#Central Solar Reserve Bank of Accompong genuine or fraud.. The only 3rd party source is ref 3,but the only material in that article about the bank is a quote from from McPherson , who is not an independent source. DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply

I am not a lone editor making "unilateral declarations", they have a passport supported and/or endorsed by the Government of Jamaica. There are notable changes happening in Accompong, including the current discussions for its symbolic recognition by CARICOM as the oldest sovereign territory in the Caribbean. While these changes certainly are slow in forthcoming, they are notable. Maroon Master ( talk) 12:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Per nom. No decent sources. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment My inputs seek to highlight the evolution and changes within Accompong under its current Colonel, Ferron Williams. Given that he is in his second term, his activities are notable as are the new Maroon institutions he creates, it would be an error to omit the implications of his policies within the Wikipedia coverage of Maroon communities. Maroon Master ( talk) 11:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The article linked to above says that the "passports" were created so people could have them stamped as a memento of their trip to Accompong. We do not even have such crucial information as population in our article on Accompong. The article linked to above uses wording that suggests that Accompong may not have any residents at all, and it is also unclear if it has anything approaching defined boundaries. It is probably notable, but organizations and events in it are not without clear passing of GNG. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 19:03, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Garden town (disambiguation)

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

Unnecessary disambiguation page per WP:TWODABS. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 04:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment (keep), as the editor who moved the previous redirect of Garden town to this new disambiguation page it seemed a sensible option as there were previously two pages 'Garden Town' and 'Garden town' disambiguated only by capitalisation. I also added (Pakistan) to Garden Town (Pakistan). I agree with Boleyn that this is a useful page and would be happy for it to be moved in title if that makes sense. Thanks to Boleyn also for adding 2 similar entries. Mountain cirque 10:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply
PS, I would really appreciate an explanation from GeoffreyT2000 as to why this is delete-worthy rather than moving or solving the problem more elegantly? I'm not very au fait with disambiguation so happy to be educated. Mountain cirque 10:17, 4 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. MBisanz talk 01:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Saran Shakthi

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

Autobiography of young film actor who doesn't yet meet WP:NACTOR. He played a lead role in one film of unknown notability, followed by minor roles in a few others. The only coverage I can find of him online is what's here: a paragraph in a page of short news items in The Hindu noting how young he is, and brief mentions in a few articles about films. He may well be notable in a few years time, but this is WP:TOOSOON. I'm unsure about the surname: all of the references cited simply call him "Saran", and many Indian film actors work mononymously, but it seems we need to take his word for it for disambiguation from Saran. OnionRing ( talk) 05:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. OnionRing ( talk) 05:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. OnionRing ( talk) 05:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:36, 2 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. MBisanz talk 00:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply

INFE

INFE (  | 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 fanclub network for Eurovision. No assertion of notability, almost completely based on primary sources, and won't inherit by association with Eurovision. MSJapan ( talk) 04:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity ( talk) 06:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity ( talk) 06:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mojo Hand ( talk) 04:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Md Tawfiqur Rahman

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

Unnotable person. Googling them brings up little-to-no results. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 04:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 04:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 05:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply

TIGER WEBS

TIGER WEBS (  | 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 does't indicate it's importance of creation instead seems like promotion of the company. NepaliKeto62 Talk to me 04:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Dane2007 ( talk) 06:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply

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

Does not appear to meet the notability guidelines. Dane2007 ( talk) 04:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi Dane2007 .References 4, 5 and 6 (initially numbered 1, 2 and 3) are sourced from newspapers/news websites. Please re check and see the cited sources. Shall add few more, but these 3 definitely meet the Wikipedia guidelines as they are newspaper/news site articles. Thanks, Lone1wolf ( talk) 06:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Have added 3 more references from newspapers and news sites. Thanks, Lone1wolf ( talk) 06:30, 2 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. MBisanz talk 00:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Lia Sinchevici

Lia Sinchevici (  | 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 current sources - one blog post, one routine news report about a car accident - do not attest this individual's notability per WP:ENT or WP:BASIC. - Biruitorul Talk 04:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep: Given that this is an actor from a non-English-speaking country and appearing in non-English films, I think some deeper research would be a good idea. Could be notable, just not have a very good article. Montanabw (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Technically, the burden of showing notability would be on the writer, not on those voting to delete or keep; as we stand, the article only shows Miss Sinchievici having had cameos in some films (which is presumably to be expected in such a young actors, but does not make her notable, at least not yet). As a native speaker of Romanian, I have scoured through google to see what sources would assess her notability, and all we get are a couple of promotional pieces in a tabloid or two. Dahn ( talk) 11:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Uanfala ( talk) 20:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. Uanfala ( talk) 20:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Surface Accessories

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

WP:CRUFT. Sourced to shop pages. MSJapan ( talk) 04:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 09:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete under CSD A11. Graham 87 04:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Im not purblind

Im not purblind (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just a phrase used by an organization and have no cite or links. NepaliKeto62 Talk to me 03:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Dane2007 ( talk) 06:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Nura Woodson Ulreich

Nura Woodson Ulreich (  | 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. Single book entry on wikipedia related to artist; notability not significant enough for her own page. Suggest deletion and/or merging content with All_Aboard,_We_Are_Off. Dane2007 ( talk) 03:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. The artist isn't known for just one book. Her art and murals have been subject to acclaim in addition to her work as an illustrator. If anything, content of All_Aboard,_We_Are_Off should be merged to the artist's page. I think the two deserve separate entries, but deleting the artist but leaving a work of hers seems to be the wrong way around. Plandu ( talk) 03:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep I added numerous references. Back in the 1930-1950 period I think she may have been well-known. There are mentions of her paintings, carpet deisgns, illustrations and books in Google books. She appears in old "Who's Who" listings often enought that it was easy to find her basic bio information, 70 years down the line. She had a short article in TIME magazine. That was huge back then. I think the many mentions in Google books makes her anotable artist of that time, and of course notability is not temporary. Merits her own page. HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 04:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Comment I've now added over 20 references, which were not that hard to find. I also turned up four permanent collections with her work, three of which are major institutions: San Diego Museum of Art, the Smithsonian American Art Museum and the Walker Art Center. See page for specifics. The collections mean she automatically meets notability via point 4 of WP:ARTIST. Dane2007, I think it might be time to withdraw or close this nomination, to save some time. HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 05:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 03:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Semantic web data space

Semantic web data 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)

No apparent notability for this concept; all the references come from one author, and a Google search doesn't find anything else notable. There doesn't seem to be much to say about this concept, which apparently is just about a set of data that have the same "identifier". Yaron K. ( talk) 00:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  08:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:04, 2 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. MBisanz talk 00:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Vonthibettu Prabhakara Hegde

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

Awarded India's third highest gallantry award only once. Fails WP:SOLDIER. KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 13:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is one of four very similar articles at AFD, and all of them have had broadly the same level of minimal input so far. Additional contributors to the debate over the next seven days would be welcome. KaisaL ( talk) 03:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL ( talk) 03:01, 2 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. MBisanz talk 00:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Rafiq Khan

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

A non-commissioned officer awarded country's third highest wartime gallantry award. Fails WP:SOLDIER and also no adequate sources. KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 13:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is one of four very similar articles at AFD, and all of them have had broadly the same level of minimal input so far. Additional contributors to the debate over the next seven days would be welcome. KaisaL ( talk) 03:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL ( talk) 03:01, 2 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. AustralianRupert ( talk) 09:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Subedar Randhir Singh

Subedar Randhir Singh (  | 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 non-commissioned officer awarded country's third highest wartime gallantry award. Fails WP:SOLDIER and also no adequate sources. KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 13:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 19:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 19:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is one of four very similar articles at AFD, and all of them have had broadly the same level of minimal input so far. Additional contributors to the debate over the next seven days would be welcome. KaisaL ( talk) 03:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL ( talk) 03:01, 2 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. AustralianRupert ( talk) 06:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Shish Ram Gill

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

A non-commissioned officer awarded country's third highest wartime gallantry award. Fails WP:SOLDIER and also no adequate sources. KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 13:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 19:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 19:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is one of four very similar articles at AFD, and all of them have had broadly the same level of minimal input so far. Additional contributors to the debate over the next seven days would be welcome. KaisaL ( talk) 03:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL ( talk) 03:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 23:49, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Ellen Ochoa Prep Academy

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

Non notable school related article without any external sources. NepaliKeto62 Talk to me 02:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Baum des Lichtes ( talk) 05:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy has already been speedily deleted. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply

DXMA (Davao)

DXMA (Davao) (  | 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 even doesn't show what it is about. It may be about FM radio or something else. This article has no external sources and very short too. NepaliKeto62 Talk to me 02:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand ( talk) 04:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Malwana International School

Malwana International 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)

Previously PRODed for failing WP:NSCHOOL and deleted as such in 2015, the article has been recreated. It sounds most of all like grumpy first-hand experience, and in my searches for sources I found nothing reliable and significant that would serve as the basis for a re-write. Thus, still failing WP:NSCHOOL this is a Delete. Sam Sailor Talk! 23:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 23:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 23:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker talk 02:08, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This may be a WP:COATRACK for the founder - but I'm not sure. The school appears to have had a maximum of 200 students at its peak. I don't find anything about in it searches but that isn't surprising given that it no long exists, was tiny, and located in Malwana, Sri Lanka. LaMona ( talk) 23:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (note the relist just preceding this was a finger slip on my part.) joe decker talk 02:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Annapolis Micro Systems

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

Company fails WP:CORP. Highly promotional, lack of independent coverage. References are all press releases, directory listings, interviews with CEO, etc. MB ( talk) 23:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker talk 02:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 19:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Denis Chicoine

AfDs for this article:
Denis Chicoine (  | 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. None of the sources in the article are reliable significant sources. One is reliable (The Seattle Times) and only briefly mentions Chicoine as the article is about Francis Schuckardt and the death of his faction's nun. Most sources were written before Chicoine was born. The more current ones are religious publications (thus a niche publication), lawsuit document or unpublished letters. None of which are reliable nor significant sources. Citation (label as notes) quotes don't even support what they are supposed to support. I could not find any reliable significant sources (I did find "The Resurrection of the Roman Catholic Church: A guide to the Traditional Roman Catholic movement" by it was published by iUniverse, a self publishing company (they will publish what ever anyone wants). Spshu ( talk) 21:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Comment. Chicoine was only mention 3 times in that book. Notability, more specifically WP:SIGCOV, however requires that the reliable source more than give trivial or passing mention of the person as the article or book must significantly cover the person or other subject. Spshu ( talk) 22:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker talk 02:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as WP:G4 and WP:G12 by DGG. ( non-admin closure) —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 23:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Internet Miniature Pinscher Services Inc. (Imps)

AfDs for this article:
Internet Miniature Pinscher Services Inc. (Imps) (  | 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 doesn't shows importance of creation neither cite any external links. NepaliKeto62 Talk to me 02:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 12:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Jan George Bertelman

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

This article is about non notable music teacher. No external sources are provided as well. NepaliKeto62 Talk to me 01:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi there, the page has been updated since it was nominated for deletion. The article was created as part of the Classical Composers Request List and was probably accidentally begun by clicking on the request link. References included and the article has been translated from the Dutch Wikipedia page. Sorry for having an incomplete page pop up. If you still think it should be deleted, I leave it to you. -- TheLeaper ( talk) 02:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 10:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 10:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 10:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Adam Sandler#Personal_life. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 19:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Jackie Sandler

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

Does not meet WP:NACTOR, and had no accomplishments as a model. She has never had a major role on a film, and the article states in no uncertain terms that she only appears in her husband Adam Sandler's films (aside from her first role), so WP:NOTINHERITED also applies. MSJapan ( talk) 18:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 16:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 16:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Just because her only performances to date are in Adam Sandler movies does not automatically trigger NOTINHERITED. Her filmography has to stand on its own merits, regardless of whether they happened to occur because she may ave had an inside track. Just because he stars doesn't mean he has complete control over casting, either. This is an inappropriate AfD if the argument is that her marriage renders her ineligible,as there are many examples of notable women being cast with their significant others or spouses as stars or as directors (for example, Eva Mendes, Milla Jovovich, Devayani (actress), Kate Beckinsale, etc. to say nothing of several far more famous individuals like Kate Winslet or Helena Bonham Carter) Montanabw (talk) 20:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
No, the actual argument is that she fails WP:NACTOR. Also, hate to point it out, but the vast majority of Adam Sandler's movies are produced by his production company Happy Madison, so yes, he does indeed have a say in the casting of his films. MSJapan ( talk) 23:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 02:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker talk 01:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I am no longer sure but I think it; meets WP:GNG and WP:PERSON, she's played roles in quite a few films dating back to the 90s and a search on google books reveals 1. There's books about her and her works and 2. There's books that mention her (some trivially, others not). Mr rnddude ( talk) 02:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Adam Sandler#Personal life This is an excellent case of " notability is not inherited". I see some votes above which say she passes GNG. However, if you notice carefully, almost every single article talks about her in context of her husband and this is essentially WP:INVALIDBIO. A subject cannot have its own article if the subject is primarily known as the spouse of a notable person. I tried to find out sources to see if the subject is independently notable and I failed. Here are the results of an exclusion search I did on Google news
  1. "jackie sandler" -"adam" - 10 results
  2. "adam sandler" -"jackie" - 205,000 results
From the above, we see that "Jackie Sandler" appears independently of Adam in only 10 results (and most of these trivially). Someone who is independently notable would have much more coverage.
Failing above, I tried to have a look at WP:NACTOR. The subject clearly doesn't satisfy criteria 2 and 3. Criteria 1 requires significant roles in multiple notable films. The subject has acted in multiple films but they have been small roles. Significant roles in multiple notable films is required and that is not satisfied here.
As the subject is not notable, I would have gone for a delete. But "Jackie Sandler" is a valid search term so I would prefer a redirect here. This is consistent with other AfDs of a similar nature - See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zachary Bogue (redirected to wife's article) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sadie Sandler (redirected to father's article). -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 07:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Adam Sandler#Personal life. Previous points for removal are agreeable to me, but a redirect also makes sense for the ease of end users. I also took the liberty of search results for her name minus 'Adam', and there's pretty much none of relevance. She has no independent notability. KaisaL ( talk) 19:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Is she an executive producer or have a leading role with Happy Madison productions? AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 16:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
She'd have the former as a definite credit, so no. The latter probably doesn't matter; the head accountant also has a leading role in the company, but we don't have an article on that person just for that reason. MSJapan ( talk) 16:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Point No. 1. MBisanz talk 00:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Point No. 1 (song)

Point No. 1 (song) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One of the band's singles, "The Fad", not only charted on more charts than this, but also better on both the charts it managed to receive. Its ultimate fate was deletion by PROD. Someone reverted my PROD of this one and suggested I take it here. Google search does not bring up anything relevant except for the Wikipedia result. I believe it is not worth merging as it is the title track of the album, so the search term is no longer notable. Also, there really isn't much notable content to it. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 15:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 16:06, 25 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 02:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker talk 01:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into Point No. 1. I've also been unable to find anything on Google: a Google search for "Point #1" Chevelle -Skeptic (with the song name "Skeptic" forbidden so that it will remove album searches), brings up pages of no substance at all, just lyrics pages and links to the music video and things like that, and a couple people showing how to play it on the guitar. If someone cared enough about the song individually to actually write about it, they either didn't do it on the web, or hid it well. -- Closeapple ( talk) 17:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Pewny Michael

Pewny Michael (  | 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 to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Google searches not finding any significant coverage. Article appears to be a promotional autobiography. noq ( talk) 08:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker talk 01:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 15:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 15:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I don't find anything that resembles a review or a bio in an independent source. I mainly find sites where his work is streamed online and a few notices of performances or recordings for sale. I note that he appears to be better known in Europe than in the US, which may color the results. However, I cannot find evidence that he meets GNG or MUSICIAN. LaMona ( talk) 00:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 00:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Arthur Dietrich

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

Scarcely referenced, original research about a fictional character presented almost completely within the fictional context. There are notable characters, but Arthur Dietrich isn't one.

The previous AFD was closed as "no consensus" inappropriately. The reasons against deletion claimed that references were available, but the fact is the references cited were not specifically enumerated -- and they were not non-trivial sources. Of course this character appears in a book that enumerates all 70's sitcom; but there has been no citation given which deeply analyzes the character. -- Mikeblas ( talk) 04:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker talk 01:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and Redirect, the subject of the article is mentioned in a few secondary sources but only trivially and in reference to fictional characters as a whole, and thus fails to meet WP:GNG, the previous AfD (no consensus) fails to convince me that there's any reason to keep this article around either. Mr rnddude ( talk) 01:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Barney Miller (and Weak Delete as not entirely necessary but extremely unlikely to be useful content to save). Sources don't look to justify a stand-alone article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:37, 4 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. MBisanz talk 00:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Ray Lewis (transport manager)

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

Doesn't satisfy WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Clarityfiend ( talk) 01:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  08:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  08:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  08:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 06:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional comments here would be welcome. KaisaL ( talk) 01:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL ( talk) 01:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is of solely local interest, as far as I can tell, and we require broader interest for entry into WP. A minor local official, a "local celebrity." Not notable in the WP sense. LaMona ( talk) 00:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Procedural close as Speedy Deleted.( non-admin closure) -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 09:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Responding to Conflict

Responding to Conflict (  | 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, almost unreferenced, possible advert, disorganized page. Jjjjjjdddddd ( talk) 00:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker talk 01:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 09:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply

The San Francisco Improv Co-Operative

The San Francisco Improv Co-Operative (  | 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 was actually PRODing until I noticed the February 2013 PROD, but I still confirm mine: My searches simply found nothing better than a few trivial passing mentions, two of which were reprinted, there's nothing else to suggest the needed solid independent notability.. This frankly should've been sooner as my searches have varied from Books (only 2 links), News, browsers and SFGate.com, substantial coverage was not found. Notifying taggers Wikipedical and Mikeblas. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete. I don't think there's any non-trivial third-party coverage. Anything I find is just a resume mention (as "such and so hosted a workshop there"), or an announcement of a show. -- Mikeblas ( talk) 15:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker talk 01:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Uanfala ( talk) 20:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Uanfala ( talk) 20:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Philippines at 2nd tier beauty pageants

Philippines at 2nd tier beauty pageants (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN WP:LISTCRUFT - these lists of participants already exist elsewhere in their respective pageant articles. MSJapan ( talk) 07:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker talk 01:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is that the subject is likely notable, though sources from that time are not easily available online. Therefore, the consensus is to give it more time. Mojo Hand ( talk) 16:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

James Peddie (author)

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

does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO, does not appear to be listed in only article reference, The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction - [28] (entered the author's name and book names), Peddie's publications do exist but not in significant numbers ( WorldCat lists two occurences of each - [29], [30]). Coolabahapple ( talk) 16:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 16:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, ISFDB has no records on him. Coolabahapple ( talk) 23:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep This fellow wrote for the " penny dreadful" publishers, printed in the late 19th-early 20th century on poor paper, so they generally did not get into libraries and there are many that did not survive. I was able to add two mere references, both just mentions. The book as listed in Worldcat is only 15 pages long, so it's essentially a story. He may be lost to history, sadly. (Particularly interesting is that his co-author is listed as "Mrs. George Corbett". And the book title page mentions other works by him: "by James Peddie. Author of "Dangerous dilemmas" "Secrets of private enquriy office" &c."). LaMona ( talk) 21:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 06:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. User:LaMona makes good points about the likelihood of the survival of the sources, and their comment on the other titles listed in the book's title page is actually a much better source of notability than they've made out. If they were publishing multiple books that were for mainstream consumption at the time, it's entirely likely that in the zeitgeist of the moment they were an inherently notable author. It would be a shame to remove them from history just because we can't, well over 100 years later, find lots and lots of sources. Sometimes we should look to the evidence that is available, and work on the probabilities - it's not like there's a WP:BLP issue. Just my thoughts. KaisaL ( talk) 16:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rebb ing 19:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, sorry but there have been zero useable sources found, i am not asking for "lots and lots", only enough to make Peddie notable, also, WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Coolabahapple ( talk) 15:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I thought I had commented on this earlier, but apparently not. It is a pity that the nominator did not click on the one link that was already in the article when they nominated it - it would have taken them directly to the article in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction which they could not find. However, while that article does amount to one usable source, it says little more than is currently present in the article under discussion here. I can find one source on another work of his this. There may be more, particularly since he seems to have had a long career - Amazon advertises a work of his from 1861. The trouble is that he seems to have been one of at least dozens of hack writers in London at the time, even if he managed a longer career than most. PWilkinson ( talk) 22:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • keep I found and entered a very brief (single sentence) contemporary review of one of his books, that also mentioned the previous book by "the same authors". But it is the brief mentions of his book Capture of London in a number of French and English books on 19th century science fiction about the long-proposed Channel tunnel that makes this a keeper . Books google search here: [31]. Remember that any particular books google search produces only some of the hits google finds (it was more complete before that copyright law suit). If you get a handful of hits, you can reliably assume that more exist. None of these is extensive, the book is more of a curiosity thing. But there it is. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 23:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, so there should be an article on the book if it is notable, not on the author, for whom nothing substantial has been found, " One swallow doesn't make a summer" (apologies to Aesop:)), only one notable book does not make the author notable. "But coolabahapple, what about Harper Lee? Oh drat! Coolabahapple ( talk) 04:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as clearly failing GNG. The notability requirement isn't about determining the subject's merit (which Mr. Peddie may have); instead, it's about ensuring sufficient sources currently exist that we can actually write a neutral, reliably-sourced, useful article. Coverage lost to the sands of time does not an encyclopedia write. Cf. WP:DEL7. Rebb ing 04:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. Cf this advertisement in the Middlesex Courier, which gives an address and further works. An author of multiple well-reviewed potboilers is probably notable. I suspect the relevant sources are offline and in the UK. Mackensen (talk) 02:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply
    Also, this dissertation from the University of Texas has some useful context. We can't use it as a source, but it may point in helpful directions. Mackensen (talk) 02:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as WorldCat lists over 1,200 listings and that's enough. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply
    • @ SwisterTwister: Are you sure? I'm getting 167 hits ( link) and it's not clear to me that all of these are the same Mr. Peddie. More importantly, since when have we been able to prove notability by an author's own publications? GNG and BASIC are explicitly predicated in terms of how a subject has been received by others. Even if the author's supposed 1,200 listings were somehow a permissible source, how are they "significant" coverage? Is a phone book "significant"? Furthermore, not that even a million WorldCat entries would further the purposes of our notability guidelines because they don't provide usable third-party material for writing the article. Rebb ing 15:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, i feel like Canute against the tide of consensus. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply
    • I don't get it. The AFD for an article like Jenna Fife (28 footnotes; 1098 words in body alone) is closed as no consensus with half a dozen editors having no trouble seeing that the sourcing, while extensive, isn't significant third-party coverage, but the community is willing to divine reliable, significant, independent coverage from contemporary advertisements and single-sentence reviews and sources like this to keep an article that is a mere twenty-three words because we imagine he may have been notable? Rebb ing 16:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_July_2&oldid=1142223770"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE