The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! ·  ✉ 06:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Dwayne Powers (  | 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:GNG. Even fictional characters must be shown to be notable. I could find no evidence that this is the case for Mr. Powers. Simply redirecting doesn't help, as Nancy Drew#Video games does not include a section on characters. ubiquity ( talk) 15:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following Nancy Drew-related pages because they also fail WP:GNG:

Penvellyn (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jane Penvellyn (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sally McDonald (Nancy Drew) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Helen Archer (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Eloise Drew (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hannah Gruen (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Beatrice Hotchkiss (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bess Marvin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Prudence Rutherford (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Togo (character) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Vivian Burnett Whitmore (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ubiquity ( talk) 19:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• I haven't had time to look through all of them, but this seems like an ideal place to merge all into a newly-created List of minor Nancy Drew characters. I note that many of these seem to be from books, rather than video games, but again, I haven't read through everything in detail. Jclemens ( talk) 05:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • This has already been done for The Hardy Boys in List of The Hardy Boys characters and for Tom Swift in List of Tom Swift characters. I'm not sure I understand why Nancy Drew deserves special treatment here except for characters (such as possibly Bess Marvin) whose notability on their own merit can be solidly demonstrated. ubiquity ( talk) 17:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 15:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete all. Not opposed to a merge, theoretically, but that would require some indication that the "minor Nancy Drew characters" have some notability unto themselves, with articles about them individually or as a group but not enough to warrant separate articles. As far as I can tell, these pages are just Wikia-style repositories of in-universe primary sourced info, so they should be either transwikied to Wikia or just outright deleted. czar 17:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Without proper sources to establish notability, there is no need for excessive plot information. Any pages where they are mentioned can likely cover all relevant details without needing for them to be merged anywhere. TTN ( talk) 19:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Reformulate this AFD on a character-by-character basis. Alternately, Keep Bess Marvin, create List of minor Nancy Drew characters that includes Hannah Gruen and may or may not include others on the list. But, at a minimum, please do separate AFDs for Bess Marvin and Hannah Gruen, because if anyone who knows anything about the issue is a Wikipedian who skims through the AFD lists, shoehorning these far-more-notable characters in under the principal title of a nobody without a crossreference is going to lead to the wrong result. Combining all these articles into one AFD is cumbersome at best, because the characters, and their coverage, aren't remotely comparable. While I agree some of these characters are crufty, please let me put this into a potentially more familiar pop-culture universe: Combining these articles in one AFD is like combining a proposed cull of South Park articles to include Dougie, Butters Stotch, Randy Marsh, and Kenny McCormick in one AFD discussion—and captioning it only with Dougie!. I assure you I know better than to argue that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That is in no way my goal. I'm just trying to give a sense of perspective between the relative indispensability of female second lead Bess Marvin, clearly notable supporting character Hannah Gruen (no less so than Stan's dad in SP), and unheard-of "one[-]time" computer game character Vivian Burnett Whitmore (seriously, who?).

All that being said, I'm going to play the gender card here, for the record if nothing else: if there were more women editing Wikipedia this would never have happened, because plenty of women know the gosh-darned difference between arguable Riot Grrrl subcultural icon Bess Marvin (whose article has gained a number of citations in the past week, I note) and some computer game character who admittedly has nothing to do with anything. This is in NO way intended to be a slight on the editor raising the AFD discussion because that's what a community is for. The articles weren't great and Ubiquity was within rights to call shenanigans; we should all feel comfortable nominating cruft for deletion. It's a slight on the fact that nobody in the world until this week has added citations to establish the notability of at least the character on this list who is a relatively universally known figure in the past and present audience of American girl-focused children's literature, and a slight on the fact that a random 45-year-old lady who's working on a deadline on a real-world project over a holiday weekend is the only person here ranting and raving against across-the-board deletion, because this "fandom" is almost entirely female, when a male-based fandom would have a discussion going out the door and getting written up on blogs for its vehemence. This compares to the Wedding dress of Kate Middleton issue: a significant group of humans find this thoroughly notable, but they're not on Wikipedia to rant about it for whatever reason even though they will be sad if the article isn't there when they go looking for it.

Many thanks to relister Northamerica1000 for not closing this before I had a chance to see it. I will see what I can do to establish notability for, at best, Bess Marvin outside fancruftland, because it exists; I just need to find a couple of hours in the JDL-universe to be able to prove it. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply

I don't see the case for separate articles (or AfDs for that matter) based on the added sources, if that's all that exists. There's nothing to stop someone from redirecting Bess Marvin to a place where she is covered (if one exists), but right now there is a difference between being important to a series and/or subculture and having enough significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources ( ?) to warrant a separate article. czar 00:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I don't think we need different AfDs for some of these pages, because the AfD process is consensus-based, not vote-based. If the consensus is to allow some of the pages to stay, and others to be merged into a list, that's fine. The consensus doesn't have to be delete-all or keep-all. I would be happy to see any of these pages kept if their subjects can be shown to be notable. I initially only nominated pages with no references at all (which is why Carson Drew didn't make my cut), and I see that a number of references have been added to some of the articles since then. I did not withdraw these pages from nomination because I'd like to see some consensus that the references are enough to establish notability, but it seems like this is the case with Bess Marvin.

I'm not sure gender has anything to do with this. I'm a guy, but I read all the Nancy Drew books when I was a kid, and I can distinguish between the importance of someone like Bess Marvin, and someone like Dwayne Powers. But the fact is that none of the nominated articles had any references at the time of their nomination, and this is an encyclopedia, not a fan-wiki. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and the way we keep that from happening is by insisting on notability, as demonstrated by appropriate sources. These have still not been provided for the bulk of the nominated articles. ubiquity ( talk) 17:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply

I think you meant WP:IINFO, but that doesn't really matter, because WP:IINFO lists four specific types of indiscriminate info, and this isn't one of them. In fact, anything that's ever referred to as "*cruft" by any editor is actually more likely to be too discriminate (i.e., bordering on the trivial), rather than indiscriminate. An indiscriminate list might be something like "cat, pencil, travel trailer, Spiro Agnew". Jclemens ( talk) 06:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Uanfala ( talk) 22:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Uanfala ( talk) 22:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete all and then Redirect however if as needed, as there's still nothing actually convincing and there's not going to be, considering they're simply characters. SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete All: I find the nom's argument persuasive, and agree that Wikipedia is not the NancyDrewWiki. Beyond that, I have no idea why this was relisted twice, and relisting it a third time's just absurd; there has been a clear consensus to delete, and only one dissenting voice. (As far as that goes, despite Julietdeltalima's passionate dissent and assertion that not only could the articles she advocates keeping can be sourced, but she would go ahead and do that, the aforementioned articles haven't been touched since her post, a span of time during which she's made about seven hundred edits.) Ravenswing 03:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete all, or merge all, if we must. Each is not notable, but collectively they might be. Bearian ( talk) 19:46, 27 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. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

I don't see that Werleman meets our standards of notability. The independent sources cited in the article are of very low quality, partly blogs, and even the best sound more like opinion pieces than news articles. Huon ( talk) 22:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete non-notable journalist. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment, have been unable to find reviews from the mainstream press, gsearch does, however, bring up some reviews that may assist notability(?):- in CounterPunch - "Both books (Athiest Threat and one by another author) are essential reading for anyone seeking to better understand the waywardness of a large chunk of the atheist movement." [1], Minnesota Atheists - "Book Review: God Hates You, Hate Him Back - Werleman definitely gets an 'A' for idea ... Unfortunately, his follow-through isn't as good." [2], in Oxford University Press blog - "We seem to be witnessing a broad reaction against the New Atheism movement by atheists ... C.J. Werleman, in The New Atheist Threat: The Dangerous Rise of Secular Extremists, himself formerly a militant atheist, describes the New Atheists’ uncritical devotion to science, their childish understanding of religion, their extreme Islamophobia, and intolerance of cultural diversity." [3]. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete as this subject fails GNG. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails GNG. LM2000 ( talk) 22:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete he is a prolific writer, problem is that I can't find anything that is about him in RS publications - he is mentioned in a few blogs. And the books he writes don't seem to get reviewed in significant publications, although review mentioned above by Coolabahapple [4] in the small, fringe/extremist publication CounterPunch does explain who he is "formerly a speaker in demand on the atheist conference circuit, Werleman was for a time a popular figure within the atheist movement." overall, however, there does not seem to be enough sourcing to support an article. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 12:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete as not enough library listings and there's essentially nothing else better from there. SwisterTwister talk 19:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Željko Loparić (  | 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:NBIO. Tagged for notability since June 2008. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 22:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep as he is full professor at the very notable University of Campinas and has an H-index of 21 reported by Google Scholar ( [5]), both of which I believe should make him qualify under WP:NACADEMICS. There are articles more fleshed out at pt:Željko Loparić and at hr:Željko Loparić that we can expand from. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete the only source is a link to his own website. We can not keep articles with such total lack of sourcing. Being a full professor anywhere is not enough to meet the requirements for notability of academics. The level of citations is not high enough to pass notability guidelines 1 for academics. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply

By what standard is the level of citations not high enough? Don't forget we make allowance for different citation rates in different subjects. Xxanthippe ( talk) 04:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC). reply

• Comment. This entry for him in a Croatian encyclopedia appears to be an independent reliable source. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 in the low-cited field of philosophy. Xxanthippe ( talk) 02:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC), reply
• Keep - as has been noted above, an H-score of 21 for philosophy is pretty good. Bearian ( talk) 19:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep. According to this source (a journal article on the history of logic in Brazil) he played an important role as director of The Centre for Logic, Epistemology and History of Science at Unicamp, founder of two publication series Cadernos de História e Filosofia da Ciência and Kant e-Prints, and one of the founding members of the Brazilian Logic Society. I think that shows he is a leader of his field in his country and, together with the encyclopedia article linked above, should be good enough for WP:GNG regardless of where we set the threshold for citation counts. — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:38, 27 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 22:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

See WP:Junk Ethanlu121 ( talk) 21:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete non notable as a songwriter or in his other endevors. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Weak delete - he has a couple of credits listed at one reliable source, but WP:BLP requires significant coverage in multiple sources. Maybe userfy if somebody is willing to work on this. Bearian ( talk) 19:50, 27 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. JohnCD ( talk) 08:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Defending America for Knowledge and Action (  | 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 magnet of non-notable local organization, all sources are pretty much localized and not significant per " WP:GNG" Prevan ( talk) 21:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep, but change tense It looks like this organization is defunct. Their web site has a date of 2009, and their last call to action ("Write President Bush...") is from 2003. News hits are from years 2003 to 2009; not finding anything since then. But they did, at one time, get news coverage. I suggest modifying the article to indicate that the organization is no longer active, although the web site lives on. John Nagle ( talk) 22:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete insufficient coverage beyond a few relatively fringe or partisan news sites. Fails the second criterion of WP:CLUB. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete: If it hasn't received significant coverage from reliable sources beyond the San Francisco area, then it doesn't meet CLUB. Ravenswing 03:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- non-notable defunct organisation. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete - a former, regional college student group. It's unlikely that this article could be improved beyond what should be a tiny stub. Bearian ( talk) 19:52, 27 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. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The subject does not seem to meet notability criteria and reads like a LinkedIn page Comicmuse ( talk) 20:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete The article does not really assert notability for anything, although he seems to be a very productive and helpful person. Borock ( talk) 00:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete Taking the various aspects of the subject's biography in turn:

Journalism - the subject has:

1. written brief news articles on some respected sites (e.g. The Guardian)
2. edited a few publications (not themselves considered notable enough to possess articles of their own) back in the 90's
3. served on boards/panels of a handful of small organisations

This seems to indicate an industry practitioner, but not an individual of note.

Consultancy - The subject is:

1. managing director of a consultancy firm (again not deemed notable enough for its own article)
2. this firm has some well known clients (but this assertion is entirely unsourced)

This again indicates an industry practitioner.

Production -

1. The subject has been attached to a reasonable list of film projects
2. None of the films themselves seem particularly notable (again, they have no pages of their own)
3. And none of the sources indicate that Mr McCartney's involvement with those projects was particularly significant

Again: a minor industry practitioner.

Charity -

1. Similarly, the page establishes that Mr McCartney is attached in various ways to certain minor charities
2. The bulk of the section relates to his involvement with the IFT, describing projects it has done, not Mr McCartney himself.
3. The article for the IFT is little more than a stub, which seems to verge on reading like a press release. I am inclined to query its own notability.
4. The IFT projects themselves all seem to be on a fairly small scale, and not the subject of particular coverage or note either within the industry or the public at large

Again: a minor industry practitioner.

Conclusions - Coverage in the linked sources is largely superficial. Either Mr McCartney is the author of brief news articles linked as primary sources, or he is mentioned in passing by the secondary sources as being linked in some way to various more notable things. Rarely is there any coverage of Mr McCartney himself, and only then on less reliable websites. Given all the above he does not seem to meet WP:BIO:

1. Coverage is not substantial, and is often trivial
2. His contributions to various sectors seem confined to largely unknown, non-notable, or minor projects
3. He is not widely cited or referred to by industry peers
4. He has originated no new concept, theory or technique
5. He has possibly established the existence of a "body of work", but the extent of his contribution to it is unclear, and there is no indication that said body of work is itself notable

Comicmuse ( talk) 21:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Update I have just gone through the article and deleted:

1. Unsourced assertions
2. Assertions with sources that did not justify the claim being made (e.g. a claim that Mr McCartney was a Professor at a University, with a link to the University page that made no mention of him)
3. Assertions with dead links
4. Irrelevant detail about organisations Mr McCartney is associated with, not pertinent to a page about Mr McCartney himself

Some of the comments above now refer to sections that no longer exist, given that the assertions contained therein were not substantiated. Comicmuse ( talk) 22:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete The volume of references in the journalism section arouse suspicion - it should not be necessary to substantiate notability in this way with so many references. It would seem to be a (relatively) long list of very minor contributions rather than anything actually of note. Although I have not checked every reference in the section, every one I check fell into two categories:
  • Expired links: The link is to the home of a website, or to the home of a subsection. As such, it provides no actual evidence to support the article. The lack of a permanent webpage for these references suggests a non-notable contribution in each case.
  • Very Basic Contributions: In many of the references the contribution is merely a short paragraph quote, attributed to McCartney. This doesn't demonstrate any association with the news agencies in question, merely that he had occasionally provided comment.

I have not commented on the other sections, but there certainly seems to be insufficient evidence to deem him notable as a journalist. Seeinggreen ( talk) 21:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep this surely reads like a LinkedIn page and the "Charity" section is way over the top. However, between the number of films he has had a role in producing, along with his writing credits, this is borderline WP:Artist. This page should be substantially cut to bare bones if kept. News Team Assemble! ^[talk?] 11:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 12:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 12:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 12:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete This does not meet the criteria for WP:FILMMAKER / WP:JOURNALIST:

1. "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" - No evidence for this

2. "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique." - No evidence for this

3. "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." I see little evidence that this body of work is well-known or has been the subject of independent works. The references are for the most part simply database entries.

4. "The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." - This is the main debatable point. Yes, the films have won awards, but I feel this criteria for notability is inappropriate for a producer who is part of a far wider team responsible for the success of the work. OddElly311 ( talk) 19:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. number of films is not relevant to notability --significance of films is. The anlaysis by the nom. seems correct. DGG ( talk ) 18:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Bhattarai Danda#Education. Closed as redirect per usual procedure for non notable primary schools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 15:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Shree Gandaki Primary 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)

Non-notable primary school. Cordless Larry ( talk) 20:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry ( talk) 21:17, 21 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) 04:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

See WP:NOTESSAY Ethanlu121 ( talk) 19:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep notable... Modernist ( talk) 19:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep - no valid reason for deletion given. Subject is obviously notable per WP:BIO and the article is obviously not original research. Not sure what the nominator is doing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep, meets WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG being a key figure in Fluxus, numerous references included in article attest to this. I can, however, understand the concerns of the nom as large parts of the article are unreferenced, especially relating to exhibitions ie. "Larry Miller's genetics work have been seen in numerous exhibitions including ... (6 exhibitions are then listed all unreferenced), and the exhibition section that lists over 20 exhibitions and numerous countries where is work has appeared only has 1 reference. Coolabahapple ( talk) 17:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 17:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep, I added links to exhibitions listed on subjects own website to answer Coolabahapple's objections. If this article is to be kept, please remove the box at the top of the page. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iochone ( talk • contribs) 18:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• thanks Iochone, it was an observation rather than an "objection";), also please see WP:SPS. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Excellent observations, Coolabahapple. I added new outside links. Thanks. Isabel Ochone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iochone ( talk • contribs) 13:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply

- Iochone, thanks for improvements to the article. Coolabahapple ( talk) 16:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Republican Party presidential primaries, 2020 (  | 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:TOOSOON, no compelling reason for this article to exist so prematurely. The 2020 primaries have not even been scheduled yet. The page currently consists entirely of listings of speculative candidates, lists that will become effectively obsolete in the event that Trump is elected (given the likely scenario that he will seek re-election in 2020). Given that there is not yet significant information/coverage of the actual primary elections, this is (at the present time) a WP:GNG fail. Ddcm8991 ( talk) 19:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. No need for this article to exist yet. Wait until significant reliable information about the 2020 primaries becomes available.-- JayJasper ( talk) 20:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete WP:CRYSTAL Prevan ( talk) 21:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete Per WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL.-- NextUSprez ( talk) 22:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Agree with WP:TOOSOON/ WP:CRYSTAL issues. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete, waaaayyy WP:TOOSOON. Coolabahapple ( talk) 17:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Snowball delete - Obvious crystal ballery... Carrite ( talk) 20:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete per all of the above. In theory, the New York primary could be moot if their candidate comes in third in the 2018 New York election for Governor, and the party loses its second-place ballot position for 2020. Bearian ( talk) 19:55, 27 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 Deleted. Hoax based on content from Rahat Indori. Creator blocked as a suspected sock. utcursch | talk 22:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The subject of this biography, created by an indefinitely blocked sock account, does not appear to meet notability criteria outlined in WP:BIO. Evaluating the references I find that the following: 1) the Twocircle.net reference is a local news story that merely includes the subject in a single sentence among a list of others, 2) second reference is a dead link, but appears to have been just an alumni directory listing, 3) third reference does not mention the subject, and 4) subject's own webpage. It boils down to no independent sources supporting notability of the subject. Deli nk ( talk) 18:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Further comment from nominator: After a second look, it appears that this article is merely a copy of Rahat Indori with some alterations and deletions. Therefore, I strongly question the accuracy of the article's existing content and this article may fit the criteria for speedy deletion as a hoax. Deli nk ( talk) 18:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imran Pratapgarhi from last year. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:16, 21 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. Clearly meets WP:NGRIDIRON. Has been cleaned up. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

See WP:Junk Ethanlu121 ( talk) 18:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep: I wouldn't have called it WP:Junk. Sure, terribly written and badly formatted, but that was easily fixed. At least it had references, and a mention of an unusual achievement. See how you like it now. ubiquity ( talk) 19:17, 21 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. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply

SharkSSL (  | 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 software that doesn't assert notability. I trimmed the press releases, negative comparative language ("unlike X"), and non-independent material out of the article, and I can't find a single documented instance of where it is used that isn't cited to the company or a press release. It's been around for a decade, and I just can't find anything independent on it. MSJapan ( talk) 17:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

MSJapan, I think you are abusing your editing privileges and I'm not sure if it's a direct attack against me personally or this company Real Time Logic, but there seems to be a pattern. What seems extremely odd is that you first delete much of the content and related references that have nothing to do with press release or the company itself and then make an unfounded proposal for deletion. These were the first articles that I tried on Wikipedia and sure I made mistakes, but there appears to be an obvious pattern of attack here.

MSJapan, I clicked on the 'news' link that you inserted above and found another article that I missed. "It's been around for a decade, and I just can't find anything independent on it.", I guess you didn't even bother to look at your own recommendation for where information could be found as this comes up as the last News search recommendation: http://www.heise.de/ix/artikel/Federleichte-Diener-1134638.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorisen ( talk • contribs) 21:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Why would you delete half the article along with the references and then state there are no references?:

COSIC Cryptography Researchers acknowledge SharkSSL for delivering the fastest, and smallest known implementation for Cortex-M processors. ^[1]

The SharkSSL concept is focused on code readability, documentation, and a loosely coupled design to maintain portability. It is designed with hardware crypto engines in mind, using ANSI C and Assembly-optimized big-integer libraries to allow use in embedded devices associated with the Internet of Things (IoT). ^[2]

• Secure SMQ C Client for publish–subscribe IoT Communications ^{[3] [4]}

The subject matter is about "embedded software", which if you understand the topic does not take mainstream visibility given it is embedded into a product or device. None of us know what software is used in connected devices that surround us everyday and I found it extremely hard to dig up the materials that I did site in this article. Given the endorsement of COSIC (above) I think we can safely assume that the technology has reached notability. I would appreciate if you would restore the article as I had it and then post it for deletion review rather than the hacked condition it is currently in. Sorisen ( talk) 18:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Because, of those sources you've provided, the tech paper is about the Chaskey algorithm, and has no particular reference to SharkSSL except for one mention on page 6 as an opinion, in an experimental context as to how they benchmarked.

Direct Quote: "We compare the results for our Chaskey implementation with what is, to the best of our knowledge, the fastest available AES implementation for the ARM Cortex-M series: SharkSSL [60, 61]."

Given that in this group are the originating authors of the AES standard I would say that's the highest (expert)'opinion' possible. It was also necessary for them to disclose this as part of an educational purpose. So what you are ::really saying here is that you hold more knowledge about technical relevance than the COSIC researchers given that they used this reference in their foundation of research argumentation?

You have presented it in the article as actual fact true in all cases. So you have misused the source. You also seem to have a hard time differentiating the product from the company. The Connected World material you cite is the entire extent of the material on SharkSSL in that article, and is again presented as "Realtime says..." - that is the opinion of the company presented as such, and is not fact independent of the company. It fails WP:RS.

The article is about "Balancing Device Security and Design Cost" and why would you propose that they honed in on something of non-relative importance such as your call out on SharkSSL as a technology? The entirety of that article is ::not Realtime says..., but nice spin attack to eliminate any notable references that would independently single out this technology.

Shark SSL is not mentioned in either EE Journal article, because those articles talk about protocols in general. This is an article about the particular software, not the protocol underlying it, and you cannot inherit notability from articles which do not mention the specific product. MSJapan ( talk) 19:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

You deleted the entire feature section which calls out SMQ as a (feature) of SharkSSL. The SMQ PubSub C client SharkMQ is co-mingled code with SSL/TLS even though it wasn't cited in granularity in that particular article, but you ::would already know that if you bothered to read the manual and understand the technology.

The reference and entirety of how it was written sites the technology and has nothing to do with the company.

In summary I think it's clear that you are spending an absorbent amount of time to focus in either on my articles or attack anything that has to do with this company. I would again request that you restore the article to it's original condition and let other non-bias editors contribute their thoughts to the material without the targeted <snip> appearance it is currently in. I would recommend that others review the now deleted articles Barracuda Application Server and Barracuda Web Server that you promoted for speedy deletion, along with the attacking comments that you have given throughout against me (that were false) and even taunting messages to my own talk page. Wouldn't that seem like a fair gesture? Sorisen ( talk) 20:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Nope. I'll point out here that you never responded to the discussion on WP:COIN [6] here in a satisfactory manner, and you have admitted to a relationship with the company, so you do indeed have a conflict of interest. You have not, however, made a case for why either the company or the product is notable. You have also never addressed how anything you have edited has ever met with policy. You have been told repeatedly that press releases are not reliable sources, and that that is not open to discussion. You have been told that trivial mentions of products are not significant coverage, and this is also not up for discussion. What you are doing is what most promotional editors do - take anything that has the company's name on it and call it a "source", without respect for the policies and procedures of the encyclopedia. You have only ever edited material relating to Real Time Logic and its products. Instead of asking me why I seem to have a focus on them, I think you need to disclose why you have a focus on them. MSJapan ( talk) 21:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

I responded to you on the pages you on the Barracuda Application Server/Barracuda Web Server pages that you had deleted and maybe I didn't add enough of the SAME answers in the COIN section, that you closed, so I cant edit - regardless. (Despite another editor suggesting more time.) I've been looking at WP:HA and other areas to get help, but I'm a novice and I have less that 6 months experience. Arguing with you is not enjoyable and pointless. It's sickening to see the time I spent just deleted and twisted with negativity and nothing positive whatsoever on how I could make anything better. Yes 'read the rules...' Any comment I make you twist (like reference Draft for Lua Server Pages, which is not yet completed and shows I was extending my writing in same relevant area with no product or COI pertaining to Realtime. Here you said it doesn't count because I didn't finish it and no edit in a couple months and I had them listed as a user of LSP technology. No I never admitted to a relationship. I asked for license permission to use images I found on google to adhere to the creative commons requirement. I asked them to read my article to insure technical accuracy and you turned it into "they wrote it together" and questioning my technical capacity for the subject matter. Sorisen ( talk) 23:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Well, here's an "unbiased" editor, such as Sorisen demands, and I find his arguments unpersuasive. He would be better served adding reliable sources conferring the significant coverage about the subject WP:GNG requires to the article, devoid of promotional/press release content explicitly debarred by the relevant guidelines, instead of mudslinging and ad hominem attacks, a standard tactic of editors lacking substantive arguments. (Honestly, does anyone glare at his terminal and think, "I have found a random editor, and despite knowing nothing about him and never having had dealings with him before, I somehow must hate him and wish him ill! Death to his articles!") I could find no such sources myself. Ravenswing 03:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply

More sources that show independent coverage on SharkSSL:

http://www.edn.com/electronics-products/other/4376590/SharkSSL-secures-connected-LPC1000-based-devices Korean site: http://kr.aving.net/news/view.php?articleId=1216724 Sorisen ( talk) 18:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Another press release, and a trade show report about Coressent, one of RTL's business partners? What is so difficult for you to understand about what a press release is? If the article starts with "Real Time Logic has released", isn't very long, and quotes prices, it's a press release, which means the company wrote it and sent it out. That is not an independent source. Anything relating to a business partner of the company is not independent of the company. Apparently the issue is that you do not seem to understand what "independent" means. Independent doesn't mean "it was published somewhere else besides the company's website." Independent means "the company had absolutely nothing to do with it." I really don't know how much clearer this can be stated. MSJapan ( talk) 18:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep: More Sources

Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS139133+27-Jun-2012+BW20120627

Google book search: https://www.google.com/search?q=SharkSSL+reuters&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&ei=UVySV5rqBbHv8wfLqpCgDA&gws_rd=cr#tbm=bks&q=SharkSSL

SharkSSL on High beam: https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-325008927.html

German source: http://www.software4embedded.de/node/17020

French source: http://www.lembarque.com/real-time-logic-cherche-a-mieux-securiser-les-petits-equipements-m2m_000378 Sorisen ( talk) 19:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply

RTC Magazine Editor's Report Tom Williams 'M2M Meets Web Applications Spawning the Internet of Things' Aug 2013 Page 14: https://issuu.com/rtcgroup/docs/rtc1308/12 Sorisen ( talk) 20:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply

German source: Author Daniel Koch http://www.heise.de/ix/artikel/Federleichte-Diener-1134638.html Sorisen ( talk) 20:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Linuxdevices: by Linuxdevices Staff - http://linuxdevices.linuxgizmos.com/remote-file-manager-showcases-embedded-linux-https-server/

Electronic Products: 'Library implements embedded crypto engine' Author Jim Harrison http://www.electronicproducts.com/Software/Development_Tools_and_Software/Library_implements_embedded_crypto_engine.aspx Sorisen ( talk) 00:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Reuters is another press release. Ghits aren't sufficient, and there's only 2. HighBeam is the same press release as Reuters. The German source is a blog. The French source is the same Reuters press release in French. The last article not only includes an interview directly with a developer from the company, it has only passing mention. Linuxdevices is talking about BarracudaDrive, which uses SharkSSL. Electronic products is a press release. Coatracking stuff doesn't make it appropriate. I'm sorry if you're mad because you don't want to follow policies, but that's not my problem. Maybe when you get that job at RTL you're aiming for by being a nice guy for them for nothing, you'll go away. MSJapan ( talk) 00:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply

And just as a matter of full disclosure, the reason I am sounding relatively harsh is because this user has close enough ties to the company to ask them directly for vague licensing letters that he could get off the server but which were not available for public perusal, as evidenced in the COIN discussion, left a barnstar for another editor who was apparently pretty much associated with the company through his edits and actually hadn't edited in almost a year at the point where the barnstar was placed. So no, I don't see a need to treat this as a misunderstanding anymore. MSJapan ( talk) 01:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply

At the kind recommendation of the other editor I'm adding additional WP:RS to make it easy for everyone to see that the article meets WP:GNG. I think that the timeline and the numbers of global sources about the subject material help to provide the nobility of SharkSSL.

1. Reuters is a reliable source, that is independent of the subject, that publishes news on relevant topics. (It is based on press release), however still notable.
2. Not True: The Highbeam April 2013 reference is not the same is Reuters June 2012 reference, different content, different dates.
3. Not True: The France reference April 2013 reference is not the same as the Reuters June 2012 reference, different content, different dates.
4. The fact that the RTC Magazine editor interviewed Wilfred Neilson about the technology IMHO adds to the relevance and is not detracting. What's the difference if a music editor interviews a musician about a song. Does it make the song less relevant? SharkSSL is specifically called out and shown in the diagram for establishing secure M2M connections within embedded application I think it is reasonable to keep this article as showing relevance for the technology.
5. The Linuxdevices article dated 2005 which shows both in text and diagram use scenario and given it's an older article it shows duration over time for the technology in market acknowledgment via an independent source, to help for notability. (11 Years)
6. There are (3) books on the Ghit list not (2), so I listed them for you since you looked at them but didn't acknowledge that these are additional materials to provide notability for SharkSSL

• Selected Areas in Cryptography -- SAC 2014: 21st International Conference, Montreal, QC, Canada, August 14-15, 2014, Revised Selected Papers p 313 (SharkSSL is used as the best known existing performance reference for cryptographic research.)
• Information Security Applications: 14th International Workshop, WISA 2013, Jeju Island, Korea, August 19-21, 2013, Revised Selected Papers p19 (SharkSSL is used as the performance reference for cryptographic research.)
• Proceedings of the FISITA 2012 World Automotive Congress: Volume 6: Vehicle Electronics p. 690 (SharkSSL is recognized as an 'embedded' SSL/TLS implementation alternative to OpenSSL)

Note: Given your superior level of expertise I reviewed your pages to get good ideas on how I could improve my source material, but unfortunately found much of the same things that you argue against on this page so I'm literally confused at the hypocritical review of every single resource I site. In addition to the things that are not true...

Your page: Believer (Laura Dawn album)

http://www.allmusic.com/album/believer-mw0000591309

• Al Horowitz works for All Music the reviewer is the same company that sells the music.

MySpace.com - Laura Dawn - BROOKLYN, New York - www.myspace.com/laura_dawn

• The LauraDawn My Space is totally unbiased right? (Can't help to giggle here.)

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GCkEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA64&lpg=PA64&dq=%22laura+dawn%22+believer&source=bl&ots=itw2_p67YP&sig=-kpx7i7CRH6Zm_NMVdTYZccLJdU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDgQ6AEwCTgUahUKEwjisI7cgqTHAhWImBoKHeX2CVo#v=onepage&q=%22laura%20dawn%22%20believer&f=true

• Such a tiny mention of something that might be available on this entire page? Is that what you call Relevant and Notible?

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2hEEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=%22laura+dawn%22+believer&source=bl&ots=Ssvh5UDHfi&sig=sHHRoTRYkGs1RJ4PgBdz9j-9z8k&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBjgeahUKEwjV1oTkgqTHAhVJ1BoKHcQrBF0#v=onepage&q=%22laura%20dawn%22%20believer&f=false

• Again tiny thing that doesn't even talk about the music just some random comment that the artist said - Notable?

Sorry but given your position and the harsh attack I think the above is reasonable for others to see that you are playing double standards here. Sorisen ( talk) 04:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Sorry, but a press release is a press release. I'm glad you brought up Wilfred Nilsen as the CEO, because it sure looks like the CEO of the company used his own name here and "reviewed" your article. How'd you manage to get access to a company CEO right out of the blue, with no connection to the company? I mean, if I called up his office, would I be able to get through to him just like you did? You're not being truthful in the slightest. MSJapan ( talk) 04:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply

More lies, keep them coming, it proves my point. I never brought up Wilfred Nilsen as the CEO and have no idea what you are talking about. Sorisen ( talk) 04:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete This is a very clear delete. When evaluating software, we tend to look for high quality WP:RS and over here, there are clearly few. All the supposed RS turn out to be press releases. I also look at popularity of software and it is very clear that this is far from popular. Popular softwares can be identified from wide coverage and numerous discussions online. Clearly there are few here. In addition, the massive COI and disruptive editing is troubling. Delete as fails GNG and also WP:NOTPROMO. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 06:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply

@Lemongirl1942, Sharkssl is an Embedded software TLS implementation. When looking at Comparison of TLS implementations, how are you able to determine any level of popularity? All Embedded Software is 'embedded' in a device the public has no working knowledge about where or what kinds of products it's used in unless this information is disclosed by the manufacturer, which by default in this discussion is named as an unreliable source though all communications to the news and the editorial community. The independent acknowledgement by COSIC in the research documentation I posted above is extremely relevant. Smallest is one of the most important criteria to micro controller systems that lack of memory resources in an embedded device. Why would you believe that the smallest and fastest implementation is not widely used by devices manufactures? The software by reference has an 11 year history and the information about it's relevance has been globally pronounced. This TLS implementation is also proprietary instead of open source, which I believe inherently adds to limited visibility. In my opinion eliminating it diminishes Wikipedia's expertise and reliable coverage regarding the the topic of TLS implementations. Sorisen ( talk) 08:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Please indent your comments.

1. Yes, I know exactly what it is. Please stop misleading others by your "independent acknowledgement" by COSIC. I'm not sure if you are familiar with computer science research, but a single line saying "fastest to the best of our efforts" in a single paper by certain researchers who are part of a single research group has absolutely no significance. Multiple research papers to demonstrate this is required.
2. You said Why would you believe that the smallest and fastest implementation is not widely used by devices manufactures? Because sometimes a free open source alternative is favoured over a proprietary one.
3. This TLS implementation is also proprietary instead of open source, which I believe inherently adds to limited visibility. Thank you. Wikipedia tends to follow the world. Since you have admitted that it has limited visibility in the real world, it should have limited visibility on Wikipedia as well. I am very clear about a delete now.

Just to clarify, Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. If something is not widely used or widely covered in the world, we don't cover it either. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 08:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply

To clarify the quote: "We compare the results for our Chaskey implementation with what is, to the best of our knowledge, the fastest available AES implementation for the ARM Cortex-M series: SharkSSL [60, 61]." COSIC is not just any "computer science research", they created the AES world standard for encryption by which ALL TLS implementations must comply for support, thus elevating their position of authority on the subject matter. Sorisen ( talk) 09:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply

A research group is not considered an "authority" on a topic (however impeccable their contributions might be). I don't think you understand how the research world works. This is a single paper with a single line about the SharkSSL which is in turn not even the focus of the paper. I would have believed it if the paper had elaborated how they came to the conclusion and showed some evidence - but they haven't. Without evidence it is just a claim. They have not claimed that they have extensively compared it with other implementations. So I unfortunately, do not believe the claim. Btw, looking at the COIN thread, you clearly have a COI here and you are not declaring it. Please remember WP:NOTPROMO -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 09:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Going over Sorisen's sources, my take is the same as Lemongirl's. Beyond that, Sorisen would be well served -- that is, presuming he's neither being paid to fight his corner here no matter what, nor just hoping against hope that he can throw up anything, call it a "source" and hope we swallow it -- to read the relevant notability guidelines and get a better handle how things are done on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter, for example, whether a press release is delivered via tablet engraved by God: a press release cannot, explicitly, be used to support the notability of a subject. A Google search of book titles tells us nothing about the sources, their reliability or the degree to which the subject's mentioned: that can't be used to support the notability of a subject. A single paragraph of press release on a German blog site can't be used to support the notability of a subject, and it doesn't become less objectionable when it's on a French blog site instead. A name drop in an article about web servers sure as hell doesn't support the notability of a subject. And so on and so forth.

  At this point, I'm just not minded to do any more looking into the links Sorisen is serving up -- which so far seem to be based on the "Pick out the top few G-hits for "SharkSSL" and call those valid sources" principle -- and am pretty comfortable with assuming that any others he might proffer will just prove more smokescreens. If another editor wishes to try, that'd be another matter. Ravenswing 17:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Neither of the two remaining sources appropriately supported the claims they were tied to either, so both the claims and sources have been removed as unsubstantiated. The article, as it stands, is now entirely unsourced product puffery. MSJapan ( talk) 20:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. press releases are press releases, no matter where published . The Reuters item is undoubtedly a press release, as shown by the attribution at the end, to the company. Not all press releases are so clearly marked, but Reuters usually does indicate at the bottom, as other reasonably reputable publications. I've learned to always look. Similar for the rest of the sourinb--the nom's analysis is correct as far as I can tell, tho the subject isn't my field. DGG ( talk ) 18:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete as I've been examining this and everything is either simply not convincing or PR, none of which is keepable. SwisterTwister talk 19:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD ( talk) 08:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

Failed PROD. Article on child actress that does not pass WP:NACTOR, contains no secondary sourcing, and which reads as vaguely promotional. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 17:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 17:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 17:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete agreed does not pass WP:NACTOR. Only articles about this person are from soap opera review sites, no notability to this person. - SanAnMan ( talk) 17:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Non-notable child actress with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Page's only reference is primary. Meatsgains ( talk) 18:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete does not pass the notability guidelines for actors. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete, does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG, no reliable sources found. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Fails NACTOR. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete No credible references can be found except the primary one provided. Split25 ( talk) 16:22, 29 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 21:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

Zero reliable sources to be found; first AfD was somehow closed as "keep" despite complete lack of arguments for that position, and equal support for "delete"—closing admin wasn't on the ball that day. — swpb ^T 17:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — swpb ^T 17:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — swpb ^T 17:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete Previous "keep" vote was 10 years ago when WP was less discriminant. No indication online that the company exists or ever existed beyond a startup, and I don't think deeper searching will turn anything up. Jergling ( talk) 18:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Ah, yes, one of those 2005-6 VfDs where people routinely voted keep without any particular reason beyond they felt like it, and decisions were made on pure headcount. Of course, no one noticed that the article was created by the "owner" of this "company," and tried writing himself into Wikipedia. [7]. Obvious WP:CORP failure is obvious. Ravenswing 04:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete When the top sources found are for another former company of the same name - this is hugely non-notable. for (;;) (talk) 08:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Not notable company. Fails ORG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Dk yoo (  | 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 article about an individual who claims to be an author, film producer, film director, and expert in 15 different martial arts. However, I can't find supporting evidence in reliable independent sources that he's notable for any of these. Youtube videos, etc. do not show notability. He doesn't meet WP:GNG or any SNG (MANOTE, AUTHOR, ENTERTAINER, etc.). Mdtemp ( talk) 17:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Ah, yes, another bullshido practitioner. Obvious GNG fail is obvious. Ravenswing 05:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete Identical article was speedied and reposted. As per nominator. Peter Rehse ( talk) 13:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete non-notable martial artist. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete No significant independent coverage to show WP:GNG is met and no supporting evidence to show any other notability criteria is met. Papaursa ( talk) 00:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:51, 29 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 22:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Kiyoshi Arakaki (  | 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 independent evidence he's a notable martial artist. My search found no significant independent coverage and the article's sources are simply a list of his books. He fails both WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE. He doesn't inherit notability from his instructors, high rank doesn't show notability, and creating your own style doesn't show notability. Article was apparently created by a student of his style. Nothing in the article shows he meets any notability criteria. Mdtemp ( talk) 16:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia ( talk) 17:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia ( talk) 17:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 13:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete non-notable martial artist. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete The only real claim of notability appears to be that he has authored some karate books, but I see nothing to show he meets WP:AUTHOR. The references consist of a list of his books, which are certainly not independent of him, and fail to show he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa ( talk) 00:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 15:19, 26 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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 19:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Melissa Hartley (  | 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:CREATIVE. for (;;) (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. for (;;) (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. for (;;) (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete I'm repeating myself, but here goes: The subject of this article fails WP:ARTIST: The artist is not regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. Se is not is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. Se has not created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work, and her work has not been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Her work has not has become a significant monument, has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, has not won significant critical attention, and is not is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. The awards won are minor, non-notable awards. The WP:COI, the WP:ELs in the body and the promotional tone don't help either. Mduvekot ( talk) 18:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete - locally known, run of the mill artist, who has not even exhibited in Sydney, Australia, much less a real art capital. Bearian ( talk) 19:44, 27 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) 15:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Mehran University Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Scholarly journal that doesn't meet our notability guidelines. I don't believe that it qualifies under any of the criteria outlined at WP:NJournals. Cordless Larry ( talk) 16:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia ( talk) 17:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia ( talk) 17:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. although it is listed in a few databases, none of these are selective in the sense of NJournals. No independent sources, so does not meet GNG either. -- Randykitty ( talk) 10:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Indexing so far too unselective to pass WP:NJournals. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:22, 28 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. JohnCD ( talk) 11:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Stephen Most (  | 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 assertion of notability, and doesn't pass GNG. After removing all non-RS sources and puffery associated therewith, we're left with an award nomination (not a win), and an unreviewed book. I even tried a GBooks search for his name, and got none of the "selected bibliography" items whatsoever. It's worth noting that this article has been heavily revdel'ed twice for copyright and WP:V issues. MSJapan ( talk) 15:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete fails notability.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete non-notable playwright. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

Non-notable and unsourced BLP. PRODBLP was declined because the article was created before March 2010 but there is only one hit on Google news and it is his discography on a public song-sharing website. GSMR ( talk) 15:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete non-notable musician. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  22:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Chess Giants (  | 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 subject does not appear to pass WP:GNG. I only found websites that either provide a download link for the game, or provide basic information about the software itself. References and sources providing secondary coverage about the article subject in-depth does not appear to exist at all, and the subject doesn't appear to have significant coverage -- or enough sources to support the creation of an article without the use of original research (required for passing GNG). Notability guidelines aside, the article also appears to be written like an advertisement (although that shouldn't directly assert the notability of the subject). ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello, I am the author of this page, and this is my first edit on Wikipedia. Considering web notoriety alone, I understand very well that you think it can be deleted. Two things made me think it deserved a page: the fact that the List of chess software page mentions many poor, obscure and/or dead chess software, did make me think Chess Giants (which I use) deserved to be in this list. Also, the community of serious chess players probably less often read or write blogs than other geeks (chess isn't usually a high-tech subject). Also, it isn't written as an advertisement more than the Chess Titans page, of which I explicitly borrowed the style and layout (mostly because I'm unused to wikipedia text formatting). Yet I borrowed terms from this page precisely to avoid my text being misinterpreted as an advertisement, now I feel wrong of having done so. -- Montegozzi 2016-07-14 15:32 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montegozzi ( talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete much of this article is a WP:GAMEGUIDE, in addition to the reasons described above. - Champion ( talk) ( contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 23:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom & Champion. for (;;) (talk) 08:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete Non-notable, no coverage in reliable sources (which only seem to mention "chess giants" in the context of the history of chess).— J. M. ( talk) 15:06, 30 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 23:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply

16 Biggest Hits (Dolly Parton album) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

While Dolly Parton is certainly notable, this work isn't; it's a run-of-the-mill compilation and best hits album issued by a secodnary publisher (not her regular label). The compilation isn't notable, and neither is this release; the notable songs in the release have their own articles already. Mikeblas ( talk) 15:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete No significant coverage in any sources. Article refs claim that this has charted in a Billboard 100 but it seems this is not the case. The individual "hit" songs charted during the years they were released - but that does not confer notability to this album. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 04:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete Very little to be found written about this beyond mentions of songs on the album. Chasing down the charting claim I found this which doesn't list the album. Gab4gab ( talk) 19:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Mona Aboud (  | 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, promotion The Banner  talk 21:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I share your concerns, but the question is if the piece is just badly written and what WP:BEFORE research was done. Can you discuss what you looked at and also if there are any copyvio issues? Montanabw ^(talk) 03:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I have looked up the name at Google to see if there was a convincing number of hits to prove her notability (775, effectively 97). Not so. I have deciphered some of the sources, but that pointed more to a woman with a job than an important, famous woman. And last step was checking what articles were linking to it (still none). I came across the article by "Articles With Multiple Dablinks" where it showed up as having links to 12 different disambiguation pages. With the style and tone of the article, I came to my judgement of failing GNG and promo. The Banner  talk 07:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete Reads like mere PR. And poor PR at that. Engleham ( talk) 18:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply

I need to know what to do in order to fix this article? please advice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rashakhalifa ( talk • contribs) 20:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete non-notable businesswoman. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Non-notable. If 3 companies were the threshold I'd be due an article. for (;;) (talk) 08:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Fails GNG. Appears to be purely promotional. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:53, 29 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 22:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

Perhaps because of the common singular name but my searches simply have found no actually substantial coverage, but that wouldn't be surprising considering the mere links listed here, nothing actually convincing and nothing to also suggest substance for her own notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Search results pull up articles related to the common name "Maryann" or "Baegod" but not the subject specifically, thus lacking notability. Meatsgains ( talk) 23:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Oluwa2Chainz »» ( talk to me) 08:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Oluwa2Chainz »» ( talk to me) 08:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete non-notable singer and songwriter. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:09, 23 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) 05:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Matej Paulovič (  | 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:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 22:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Delete: G7 for failure to assert a claim of notability ... and even with that, the subject is an amateur youth player of no particular distinction, the article being created by a SPA who edited Wikipedia for all of twenty-six minutes a year and a half ago. Ravenswing 18:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. I believe Ravenswing meant to reference WP:A7 rather than WP:G7, but A7 clearly states that claims of importance have a much lower threshold than claims of notability. I'm not convinced A7 is applicable, but I will not oppose if anyone tags the article with {{ db-person}}. —  Jkudlick •  t •  c •  s 23:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete - fails NHOCKEY and not finding significant coverage. Rlendog ( talk) 13:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Although I think this issue is moot, I do not think speedy is in order since - although not mentioned in the article - he has represented Slovakia at the WJC, which would seem to be enough of a claim of importance to avoid speedy. Rlendog ( talk) 19:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete non-notable hockey player. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete there is not even a claim that this player is notable. Lepricavark ( talk) 22:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG & WP:NHOCKEY. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 19:16, 29 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 Tom Fitzgerald (ice hockey)#Personal. JohnCD ( talk) 11:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Ryan Fitzgerald (ice hockey) (  | 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:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 23:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete He doesn't inherit notability from his father and doesn't seem to meet either GNG or NHOCKEY. Mdtemp ( talk) 17:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete non-notable hockey player. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Tom Fitzgerald (ice hockey)#Personal as is typically done for non-notable athletes who are children of notable ones. See, for instance, minor league baseball players Tate Matheny, Tyler Nevin, Mariano Rivera III, and Ryan Ripken, all non-notable athletes whose pages redirect to their notable athlete fathers' pages because it's a plausible enough search term to do so. Smartyllama ( talk) 17:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Tom Fitzgerald (ice hockey)#Personal, which does include a discussion about Ryan. Rlendog ( talk) 23:46, 28 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 22:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Andrew Mathwick (  | 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 IP who I assume is the page's creator given the user made the exact same edits back to the page after my series of contributions to clean it up. Subject lacks any significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains ( talk) 14:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete - one RS is not nearly enough to meet the GNG. Aboutmovies ( talk) 21:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete Our one RS amounts to "hey, someone is doing some cool writing in our readership area." This is not the general quality of article to suggest the person is notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Apart from the Emily Hoard article, I find nothing reliable. For now he fails WP:BASIC and WP:NAUTHOR. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• delete unique name makes searching easy. unfortunately, I could not source it. perhaps it is merely WP:TOOSOON. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:52, 29 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 spam and copyvio. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Little Sparta (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)

No evidence of WP:GNG notability whatsoever. The first two references to the Washington Post don't even mention the documentary, but are rather just stories about the documentaries subject matter. A large part of the article appears to be an advertisement for the director's other works. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Offhand this looks like it could be deleted as a copyright violation and as sheer, unambiguous spam. I'll see what I can find source-wise first, but offhand I might just speedy this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• That didn't take long - there's little to nothing about this film out there. The director might pass notability guidelines, however that's a might. This looks like it's the latest attempt to create the article, which was also created at Little Sparta (Documentary Film), so I'm salting both locations. I'm also concerned that the current account creator is Salesalkalema evading a block. Either way the editor is getting a block for repeatedly introducing spam to Wikipedia, both for this film and at Mansoor Al Dhaheri. This is not how you should go about trying to get someone and their work into Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:53, 25 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 22:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC) reply

OBD Tuner (  | 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 product. Only source is the company's website and no RS available by searching. Prod contested by author. shoy ( reactions) 13:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete Especially because of the confusing name. "OBD Tuner" could refer to any Chip tuning device, which is probably the kind of confusion the advertiser is going for. Also fails WP:GNG and WP:PROMO Jergling ( talk) 15:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete Fairly obscure software program. No chance that this is notable. Concur with above. Created by SPA. MB 01:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric ( talk) 04:12, 28 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) 04:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

WP:NOTDIR reddogsix ( talk) 13:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep WP:VAGUEWAVE. Andrew D. ( talk) 13:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete Keep Notability not established by this article. A lot of the things listed are not usually considered folklore, maybe folk art in some cases but not the same thing. Kitfoxxe ( talk) 14:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

BTW the articles Folklore, Folk art, and Folk culture could use some work. Kitfoxxe ( talk) 14:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• And that's WP:JNN + WP:NOEFFORT. It is quite easy to establish notability – just click on one of the search links above to find a source such as this. Andrew D. ( talk) 14:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

That paper makes me want to visit Honduras.  :-) Kitfoxxe ( talk) 19:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

But I think the author of the article needs to exert some effort first. Kitfoxxe ( talk) 19:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

There are about 200 countries in the world, and thousands of ethnic groups. Should WP have an article on the folklore of each? Kitfoxxe ( talk) 16:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• It is our policy that "there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover". For this reason, I'd expect us to cover more ground than a paper equivalent such as the three volume Celebrating Latino Folklore: An Encyclopedia of Cultural Traditions. See Folklore by ethnicity‎; Folklore by nationality‎; Folklore by region. Andrew D. ( talk) 16:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Changed my vote to keep. Topic is clearly notable, no matter how bad and even irrelevant this article is. Kitfoxxe ( talk) 18:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The folklore of any coutnry is notable. There are always enough sources; some are mentioned above. DGG ( talk ) 02:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Clearly a notable subject. I have to assume the nomination is based on the extreme amount of unsourced content in the article. I'd support aggressive cuts, but I don't think it needs to be deleted. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment, article creator has been indef blocked for disruptive editing - WP:MACHINETRANSLATION from spanish wikipedia, this looks like another one, initial edit states this (although no translate tags on article or talkpage), if kept just wondering who is going to fix it? Coolabahapple ( talk) 18:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Letter George Washington Mohammed Ben Abdallah 1 Dec 1789 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

This is not an encyclopedia article. This is a transcription of a historical document with a brief summary of the document's contents. I understand that the page's creator has good intentions by rewriting an 18th century letter that's hard to read in its original form. But Wikipedia is not the right place to do that. The transcription belongs on Wikisource. It does not belong here. Also, the title is totally ungrammatical. If the page is kept, it will have to be moved. Simon Peter Hughes ( talk) 12:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Well, looking around, I can see the letter quoted or mentioned briefly in some sources, but I don't think that any of it constitutes the sort of in-depth, intensive discussion to be considered a notable letter. The title is not pretty, much of the article is simply the text in full, and it contains some unsourced analysis/summary/paraphrasing. This should indeed be on Wikisource, not as its own article. It would be helpful to mention the letter at Morocco–United States relations and Mohammed ben Abdallah, though. Delete. GAB ^gab 01:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete or userfy until the author has a chance to recreate it on wikisource. It so obviously belongs on s:Author:George Washington I'm almost itching to do it, but that would rob Justanyone of the attribution due for his work. for (;;) (talk) 08:52, 28 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. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Mike Baggz (  | 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. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Claimed airplay is not rotation, digital radio tracker is not a good chart. Prod removed without comment or improvement. duffbeerforme ( talk) 12:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Reasoning for deletion seems arbitrary and subjective. Lack of coverage and Digital Radio Tracker as good vs. bad seem very non-specific and subjective. How often an artist comes out with new material or updates a page should not be subject to an individual, arbitrary and subjective standard. Appearances with major, well known artists merits keeping this article. No reason listed justifies the removal of an active artist's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArticulusRex ( talk • contribs) 00:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete I can find social media of his, download and sales sites, but no non-promotional sources about him. He is a self-recorded artist. Does not meet WP:NMUSIC. LaMona ( talk) 21:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep What is a self recorded artist? Can someone elaborate how being self recorded or independent discredits notoriety? And wouldn't Asap Ferg, Nipsey Hustle, The Game, 50 cent, Drake, Lil Wayne, Master P, Dr. Dre, Eminem and a multitude of other artist be considered self recorded? Sorry not understanding the statement or phrase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.140.41.6 ( talk) 01:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep Mike baggz has valid media coverage & has charted on a valid radio chart. DRT Media Base & BDS are the only sources in the industry that can track radio spins. DRT tracks both media base and BDS spins. Hope this information helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:2463:248:68EC:F735:9DBF:7304 ( talk) 15:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep notible publications, and credible news publications — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.199.84.85 ( talk) 21:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note Two of the IPs here have made only one edit - this one - so either socking or canvassing must be going on. The IP beginning 209 is the creator ofan SPA on the article. 209 also removed the AfD notice from the article, but it was reverted. The article has been WP:REFSPAM'd and of the refs that I checked many do not verify the content, others are things like sales and download sites (iTunes, etc.). At this point, if the article is to be retained it needs to revert to an earlier version or TNT. LaMona ( talk) 15:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• i agree with the previous statement; "Reasoning for deletion seems arbitrary and subjective. Lack of coverage and Digital Radio Tracker as good vs. bad seem very non-specific and subjective. How often an artist comes out with new material or updates a page should not be subject to an individual, arbitrary and subjective standard. Appearances with major, well known artists merits keeping this article. No reason listed justifies the removal of an active artist's page." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.199.84.85 ( talk) 20:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete as it is not notable and fails WP:NMUSIC. -- Anarchyte ( work | talk) 07:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep artist has notable publications, in news, international & entertainment media news, and has been featured on known artists projects. If this page was going to be deleted it would of happened years ago when it was created, reasoning for deletion is not sufficient enough under Wikipedia's guidelines stated in WP:NMUSIC Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swerrrdmedia ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note Swerrrdmedia is the original creator of the article. The article was created in Oct. 2014. Articles often linger for a while on Wikipedia before being brought to AfD. "Old" articles are those created in the very early days, 2006-2008, and they are sometimes treated differently because there were different rules then. This is not an entirely unusual. It also is not a reason for a keep !vote. LaMona ( talk) 00:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment I went through the first 17 references, and found only a few that actually validate the statements in the article. Other than quality issues (non-reliable sources) the majority did not confirm the information in the article. I marked these as "not in citation given" but in fact most should be deleted for RS reasons. (e.g. download sites, fan sites, mentions, lists). LaMona ( talk) 01:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note I think you should check references after 17-, most of the reputable publications are listed after. If your going to moderate at least be a little thorough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swerrrdmedia ( talk • contribs) 04:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Good try, Swerrrdmedia, but the references >17 only reference the discography, so that would leave the entire text of the article poorly referenced, which is still a problem. Honestly, what could this mean?: "The Beauty Of Money (2015) [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]"? fifteen references to source a single recording? That's why I gave up there. LaMona ( talk) 23:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment: Swerrrdmedia is an SPA who shares a username with a company that has a paid relationship with subject. In 2014 they rejected claims there is a COI, stating that they are just a fan. In 2 years here, they've been most uninterested in making any unrelated contributions. Consider this when reviewing their comments as it feels as though perhaps there's a lack of true independence. Rayman60 ( talk) 22:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment i am in no way affiliated with swerrrdmedia or the artist. And as far as the edits on the subject in general, because of the COI claim i changed my Username years ago and make edits under a different alias, can we please not make this article about me or my edits and focus on the subject at hand. Show some class and respect to the Wikipedia platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swerrrdmedia ( talk • contribs) 23:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete as still no convincing substance. SwisterTwister talk 02:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. as promotional ("aggz was raised in the middle class suburbs of New York in a small town called Islip, which is home to many influential artists such as Keith Murray, EPMD, LL Cool J, & Craig Mack." , rand inadequately sourced. This isn't my field, but those who do work in this area are quite specific about what charts are acceptable, and it seems their list has wide consensus. DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete All of the meat puppets are working against any argument to keep this. There's nothing to suggest he meets the wider notability guidelines. KaisaL ( talk) 02:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Inline sources are not about the company and search of the numbered references in the "References" section doesn't return anything either. Google news presence is limited to press releases. Prod contested by IP without comment. shoy ( reactions) 12:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete Non-notable. Sources aren't actual sources, just titles. Article is written like an advertisement. Possible COI/Promo considering the creator's name. Jergling ( talk) 15:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Not seeing enough coverage to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH and the article reads as awfully promotional (e.g. section headings like "Why Cool Effect" and "Project Pricing"). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete Not enough third-party, independent coverage. Appears to be about 6 months old, so this is more promotional than informational. May be appropriate at a later date. LaMona ( talk) 21:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Purely promotional, company is not-notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:58, 29 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. Already speedy deleted under G11. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

Fails WP:NCORP. All the sources given are either press releases, blog posts, directory listings, or not about the company at all. Prod contested by author. shoy ( reactions) 12:18, 21 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) 05:00, 29 July 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

Meanings are mostly dictionary definitions or abbreviations (which the target article does not include the abbreviation). It should be redirected to Flagellation which will have a hatnote to Glossary_of_blogging#Flog. GZWDer ( talk) 11:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Agree Almost none of the options are links to relevant pages. Not voting "Delete" per se since you're asking for a content change, not a removal. Jergling ( talk) 15:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Support. Flagellation is easily the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, and the only other legitimate usage in Wikipedia (remember WP:NOTDIC) would be at Glossary of blogging#Flog. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 21:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep, albeit with massive cleanup. I was going to say redirect to Flagellation, but I noticed Flogger (another disambiguation page) as well as the glossary item. Therefore, I recommend rewriting the DAB page to point at Flagellation, Glossary of blogging, and Flogger. Alternately, you could consider redirecting and adding two hatnotes at Flagellation. Cnilep ( talk) 04:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply

I removed the slang definitions and other bullets not appropriate for a disambiguation page. There are still four arguably ambiguous items, though: Flagellation, Fake blog, and Glossary of blogging#Flog, plus a blog by Felicia Day called The Flog. Cnilep ( talk) 07:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep 4 valid entries, with articles or meeting MOS:DABMENTION. Boleyn ( talk) 10:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Weak Keep - Some are weak (an article about a celebrity who writes a blog that's mentioned in passing in the article for example), but it seems like a valid dab. — Rhododendrites ^talk

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A majority is of the view that this term has received enough coverage for us to cover it as well. But this does not amount to consensus to keep, so a merger discussion remains possible.  Sandstein  07:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Clinton crazies (  | 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 a biased attack piece meant to attack critics of the Clintons. Unlike Hillary Clinton's term 'vast right-wing conspiracy'-- a well-known political phrase, this term is an infrequently used neologism and does not warrant its own article. JoeM ( talk) 10:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete fails WP:NPOV and WP:GNG. Ajf773 ( talk) 11:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The "news" and "Highbeam" links above show many other uses of the term in the mainstream media, both then and now. 2600:1002:B11F:62A8:2907:E926:A8BA:A430 ( talk) 11:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Weak Keep Why do we have all these articles for political nicknames? Bernie Bro got one too. Apparently any derogatory name that pop culture comes up with to describe opposing politics is fair game for a Wikipedia article. Not to be a deletionist, but it doesn't seem like all of these short-lived pop culture factoids need their own pages. What if we Merge them all into a page for "political nicknames" or something? Jergling ( talk) 14:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep was also skeptical about this but a google search shows it has been used quite a lot including reference to Trump. Atlantic306 ( talk) 17:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to some article about criticism or controversy of the Clintons with a neutral title. Note also that this article does not match its title. The title refers to some people. The article is actually about the condition of obsessive hostility towards the Clintons. Borock ( talk) 00:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Just struck out part of my comment after reading article again and checking out sources. It is not clear if being "Clinton crazy" is a mental condition, or if the "Clinton crazies" are a group of people. Borock ( talk) 00:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment All those voting to keep, by the same reasoning I urge you to visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinton Body Count, which has already been preemptively destroyed and redirected. If the term 'Clinton crazies' can have its own article, why does the conversation on the Clinton Body Count deserve to be censored? JoeM ( talk) 14:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Because they're two different topics. The notability of one does not have any effect on the notability of the other. clpo13_{( talk)} 15:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Also, maybe tone down the soapboxing on your user page. That content almost certainly falls afoul of WP:POLEMIC, though it does explain why you feel so strongly about this subject. clpo13_{( talk)} 15:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
    • What are you talking about? Why, specifically, do you think that we should have an article on ' Clinton crazies' but not on the ' Clinton Body Count'? As far as my user page, we're all biased by nature; and, we are all editing an encyclopedia. At least I am being honest about it. All the people opposing me and reverting me are also biased-- they're just not open about it. I wish one of the pro-Clinton editors would just admit that they don't care what the depth of her (Redacted) history is, as long as she serves as the standard bearer of far-left socialism in America. JoeM ( talk) 16:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
      • If Wikipedia has an article on subject X but not on subject Y, it's because subject X was shown to be more notable than subject Y. So far, the community thinks Clinton crazies is notable enough for inclusion while Clinton Body Count isn't. It's as simple as that. As to why that's the case, well, it's probably a matter of how many sources there are talking about each subject and whether those sources are reliable. Personally, I have no opinion on either article, but I think that if you're going to start assuming anyone in favor of this article and against the other is necessarily pro-Clinton, you're going to have a bad time. clpo13_{( talk)} 17:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
        • Look at the two terms. There are more people talking about the 'Clinton Body Count' than people talking about critics of the Clintons being 'Clinton crazies', despite the contrasting poll responses here. The two AFD requests are indeed closely intertwined. Wikipedia needs to be consistent. If 'Clinton crazies' survives AFD, by the same standard so should 'Clinton Body Count'. I would be fine with both articles getting redirected or deleted too-- as long as we stay consistent. JoeM ( talk) 17:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • "All those voting to keep, by the same reasoning I urge you to visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinton Body Count" This is rather unabashed WP:CANVASSING. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep Historical phrase. Well enough documented by WP:RS. Has current usage. Article is WP:NPOV. No compliance with WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 18:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete WP:NEO says "To support an article about a...term or concept...must cite what reliable secondary sources...say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term.". Show me plenty of sources that are about the term rather than just using it, and maybe I'll change my !vote to keep. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 21:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment Metz, Allan (1999). "Right-wing opposition to Bill Clinton and his presidency: an annotated bibliography". Reference Services Review. 27 (1): 13–61. ISSN  0090-7324. Enjoy. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 21:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply

I couldn't enjoy it. You have to pay 30 bucks to enjoy it. :) But I see enough sources now. Switching to weak keep. Cheers. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 21:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Weak Delete - I'm right on the edge for this one. Stripping it down to the basic question of whether to neologism "Clinton crazies" is notable, I'm leaning weak delete. There's the original NY Times piece by Weiss, Daily Beast, Media Matters (not an ideal source for this subject), Huffington Post (also not ideal), and Media Research Center. That said, there may be a subject in here somewhere along the lines of [what sources describe as] irrational or unreasonable criticism/hatred of the Clintons. But I'm not sure how that could be done without a POV/COATRACK nightmare, and it may well be that such criticism can simply be covered in the standard articles about political positions, campaigns, biographies, etc. (of which there are many). I'm willing to be persuaded to switch, but for now I think delete. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete We lack good sources to indicate this is either a well used term, or a broadly used one. It does not fit our guidelines for articles on terminology. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep Appears to be documented in reliable sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep Alright, then. I see enough sources. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 21:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Non-notable neologism. It's election season again, here they come... Carrite ( talk) 20:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep – Prolific use since the 1990s, as espoused within sources provided. — MelbourneStar☆ ^talk 05:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Provisional keep but consider retitling to something less neologism-ish and pejorative. Also, consider whether this could be merged into another article or morphed into a broader article about the broader phenomenon / concept of X-derangement syndrome, e.g. Bush derangement syndrome (which, after 6 nominations, is currently redirected to Public image of George W. Bush). - Wikidemon ( talk) 21:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep I wasn't aware of this phrase, but I found a 1997 New York Times article on it, so it has clearly been notable for some time. -- I am One of Many ( talk) 00:29, 27 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. JohnCD ( talk) 08:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Blue Embrace (  | 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 yet notable per WP:BAND. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, just some blog interviews. OnionRing ( talk) 09:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. OnionRing ( talk) 09:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. OnionRing ( talk) 09:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Hello OnionRing, Allmusic.com I consider a verified resource, please check their wiki [ [8]] to be listed at their database you need to have some notability, also Artist Direct [ [9]] requests some degree of notability to be included at their database not many resources online are because this particular band does not grant interviews, very few available nor pictures, MTV Networks is owned by Viacom band is listed as well I also consider a reliable source WP:Reliable sources, also they are listed at "POLLSTAR" which is a trade publication for the concert tour industry in which they gather information from professional agents, managers and promoters who produce concerts [ [10]] following link not posted at the article Blue Embrace \ Pollstar, Thank you for your help in this article! TarotRecs ( talk) 17:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Are you editing on behalf of Tarot Records, Blue Embrace's record label? If so, then you should not be editing an article on which you have a WP:Conflict of interest. Thanks, OnionRing ( talk) 17:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply

I do not represent Tarot Records, my account is new and when i created that login that was what it came to my mind, per your suggestion in my page i requested a change in the username so there is no confusion, all information gathered are from internet source that is public and available TarotRecs ( talk) 18:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC). reply

• KEEP Page arranged and fixed as requested by other members, this page it is complaint to be added to wikipedia and not to be deleted, sources are VERIFIED and CREDIBLE, including a major media outlet in rock (Blabbermouth), famous Journalists (Denise Ames), Famous and legendary Musicians such as Ex Black Sabbath , DIO members (Carmine Appice, Vinny Appice) with notable and public reputation between several other famous sources also added Spell26 ( talk) 22:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep This looks like it has a consensus already please check "Once discussion is closed, please place on talk page: {{Old AfD multi|page=Blue Embrace|date=29 June 2016|result=keep"" Medit16 ( talk) 03:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment Well, Spell26's comment reeks of promotion, and allmusic isn't close to a reliable source. Also, see WP:CON, as many totally legitimate accounts have !voted here. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Allmusic is a reliable source as shown in this list of albums reliable sources at the top of this page [11] however just a listing isn't enough for notability there needs to be a biography written by staff.which like most groups this group doesn't have so extra sources are needed. Atlantic306 ( talk) 21:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)21:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)21:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply

•  Checkuser note: Spell and Medit are socks, and TarotRecs is the same account (rename) as Medit. Socks blocked and AFD semi-protected. Courcelles ( talk) 04:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC) reply