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. only ( talk) 00:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Bahr Power Bahrain

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

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Edwardx ( talk) 23:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete -- I agree with nominator, this doesn't measure up to the wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Unfortunatly, without good WP:Reliable sources, this can't even be merged into an article on wave power. Geo Swan ( talk) 12:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply

I disagree, the world needs to know as new invention. It has already been published in local newspapers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justdanish ( talk • contribs) 02:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Struggled to find independent sources on web to save this article from deletion as the concept seemed quite interesting, but failed. Did few MOS edit to improve it according to encyclopedic style of writing and also removed a YouTube video as citation. Came to conclusion of deleting it as it fails WP:RS, article has no reliable sources except self-published blogs. Once coverages become plenty, article can be recreated

Anoptimistix Let's Talk 12:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete as original research wrapped around Spam like Hawaiian Spam musubi. If it were not deleted, I would not oppose a redirect to an appropriate target. Bearian ( talk) 21:12, 7 August 2017 (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The result was Happily withdrawn TimothyJosephWood 02:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Illyria (musical)

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

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

It's hard to tell if this is notable, since the name is so exceedingly generic, but given the articles own claims, it ran for a couple of weeks in a single theater, and I'm not seeing really anything to contradict it and say that it was somehow notable. TimothyJosephWood 23:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I guess I would add, of the sources that carried it through the last AfD ( [1], [2], [3], [4]) #1 appears to be a generic link not mentioning the subject with no archive, #2 appears to be extremely local and of passing importance, #3 appears to be a generic page with no archive other than other generic pages, and #4 ( archive version) just seems unreliable on its face. TimothyJosephWood 23:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Hello! I just joined Wikipedia, so I'm sorry if I'm not supposed to participate in this discussion, but I noticed this article while looking through the Musical Theatre Wiki Project and right after I'd started to edit it, it was nominated for deletion. I'd like to help save it if I can. Would any of these sources help prove some notability? [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. I found these from a pretty quick search, and I could provide more if needed. Paracosms ( talk) 00:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Hey Paracosms. Absolutely! If you would like to improve the article I would happily withdraw the nomination. If you think you need a substantial bit of time to work on it, I can withdraw and turn it into a draft, so that you have more time to work on it in the meantime before it is published as an article. TimothyJosephWood 00:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi User:Timothyjosephwood! Thanks for answering so quickly. I'd be happy to improve the article. Does this mean those sources would be okay to use? If so, I can get to work on it right away. Paracosms ( talk) 00:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Well Paracosms, I looked through the first few and they inspired confidence. Just ping me when you've incorporated a few and I'll clean up this whole mess. TimothyJosephWood 00:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Hey TimothyJosephWood, I've incorporated some of the references and added on to the article. Let me know what you think! Paracosms ( talk) 01:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Looks much better Paracosms. I'll withdraw post haste. Please do not remove the copyvio banner until an admin takes the time to remove the previous revisions that were copyright violations. Welcome to Wikipedia BTW. Sorry for such a rude initiation. If you ever need anything feel free to ask on my talk page. TimothyJosephWood 02:05, 2 August 2017 (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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Slick Pulla

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

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

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 20:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete -- I'm seeing some passing mentions in interviews, but nothing in-depth to sustain an encyclopedia entry. Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO, and there's nothing else there. K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete TooSoon. A few sources shy of the GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 13:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Don't want to pile on but don't want this relisted for further consensus. -- Ifnord ( talk) 16:13, 9 August 2017 (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) 14:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Elias Andra

Elias Andra (  | 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 drummer. Allmusic credits him a performing on three albums and there is no indication that he is notable outside of the bands that he has performed with. Karst ( talk) 20:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete way below meeting notability criteria for a musician. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete for failing WP:MUSICBIO. -- Ifnord ( talk) 16:17, 9 August 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Jasna Jojic

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

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

Seams to be non- WP:Notable. I can't find independent reliable sources that discuss her life. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Unsourced, fails WP:AUTHOR. I can't find anything either. No such user ( talk) 06:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete GNG fail. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 16:05, 6 August 2017 (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 Mentholatum. Restoring the redirect seems to be an agreed upon way to handle this. If someone wants to expand it into a stand-alone article, they can still do it. So Why 13:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Deep Heat (heat rub)

Deep Heat (heat rub) (  | 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, little coverage online, this article seems promotional more than anything. NikolaiHo ^☎️ 20:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete one product of a company. Not notable in itself. PRehse ( talk) 21:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• A perfectly reasonable redirect by @ Gaijin42: was rejected by an IP account for no reason, valid or otherwise. Delete or redirect Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep Our house generally has a tub of Deep Heat lying around in either the bedroom or the bathroom; unfortunately this is one of those cases where a well-known and recognisable product doesn't come up in sources so much. The mentions in this search do suggest it's a household name, though. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Restore previous redirect. It's not a terribly useful redirect because it's unlikely somebody would type this awkward phrase into a search box. It seems to exist mostly to service the Deep Heat WP:DAB page. Redirects are WP:CHEAP, so I can't get too worked up over a pointless redirect, but deleting it outright wouldn't be a terrible result. If it does get deleted, fix up the DAB page to point to the right place. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory. Nothing indicates that this product is notable. No authoritative references are provided.-- Rpclod ( talk) 01:23, 26 July 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

The Justice Film Festival

The Justice Film Festival (  | 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 about a non-notable film festival. I am unable to find any reliable independent sources that cover the subject in any detail. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 17:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete and return to author as a draft if wished. While Sheen Center has coverage, their new film festival does not. If an article for the facility is created, their festival can be spoken of within it until a separate article is merited. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:46, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Self published sources, fails WP:GNG ****
• Delete - completely unknown here in NYC. Bearian ( talk) 01:08, 8 August 2017 (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 moved to Draft:Susannah Fullerton. Yes, I realize that none of the participants in the discussion have proposed this, but we are stuck on the edge of a cliff here. A majority favors either deletion or redirection somewhere else, but there is not a clear consensus for deletion. On the other hand, some of the "keep" rationales are based on a quality of the subject that is not a basis for keeping - receipt of the lowest level of the Order of Australia award. A quick independent look at news hits reveals that there are a substantial number of possibilities which could support notability as a noted field expert, independent of any award status, but these need to be more thoroughly plumbed. Therefore, the article is moved to draft, and can be submitted to restoration to mainspace through the usual process for submission of drafts; of course, if it is left untouched for an extended period, it will automatically be deleted. bd2412 T 16:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Susannah Fullerton

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

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

Fails notability criteria at WP:BIO, minimal sourcing and certainly not written from a neutral POV. OcarinaOfTime ( talk) 07:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  07:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  07:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  07:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  07:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Seems to be sufficient NEXIST to support the article, but which could be better referenced. Certainly does not appear to be written by someone who dislikes the subject, but it does not appear to biased with praise either. The article could do with some wikification and restyling, but that is not grounds for deletion. Aoziwe ( talk) 12:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Paid for promotion. Something Wikipedia is not. duffbeerforme ( talk) 23:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC) reply

If that was an actual policy to delete articles, Bullets and Daffodils would be toast. See parallel discussion on WT:CSD. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Can you be more specific about which WT:CSD thread you're referring to? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

This one Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete and temporarily salt per nom and Duffbeerforme. Article mainly written by a WP:SPA whose userpage ( [16]) has a link to some kind of online marketing/SEO website misleadingly labeled "Independent web developer," which is not adequate WP:COI disclosure for me. Per WP:NOTPROMOTION, this article should be WP:TNTed to discourage such behavior. I don't think any volunteer editors should waste their time earning the paid editor her fee. - GretLomborg ( talk) 05:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per nominator.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 21:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep but suggest re-targeting the article as the Jane Austen Society of Australia as that's what the news hits seem to talk about more. The promotional fluff can be cleaned up by regular editing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep If you want to drop some tactical nukes or stub-ify then fine, but she passes the GNG, regardless of NPOV or COI. ABC Online and several Australian articles in the past decade are what convinced me. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 15:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete as spam. If some other, established, editor wants to write a new article about this person, that's fine. But we're not providing free advertising space. I'm not going to waste time finding the right policy to cite, so call it WP:IAR if you want to. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - no references indicate any notability.-- Rpclod ( talk) 01:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep (albeit weak) - may just scrape through minimum notability, particularly as there is some coverage from reputable sources and she has received an OAM. Bungle ^{( talk • contribs)} 10:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete for failing GNG and BIO. None of the current references (or any other reliable sources I could find) are specifically about her. Clarityfiend ( talk) 23:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment I haven't done as much cleaning up of this article as I meant to, but I do note that she is reliably sourced as having received the Order of Australia, which would seem to satisfy WP:ANYBIO point 1. "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

It depends on the type of Order of Australia award. A "Companion" level award would probably satisfy WP:ANYBIO point 1, otherwise it is questionable especially the further down one goes in award seniority.-- Rpclod ( talk) 15:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

She has the Medal (OAM), the lowest honour in the Order of Australia. It has been established multiple times that the OAM definitely does not satisfy ANYBIO. Frickeg ( talk) 05:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep per Bungle. I hate the idea of paid submissions as much as anyone but a recipient of the OAM is notable, IMHO. -- Ifnord ( talk) 16:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

OAM is definitely not enough for inherent notability. It is a worthy award, but a glance down the most recent list will show very clearly that it is not a suitable benchmark for notability. Frickeg ( talk) 05:23, 12 August 2017 (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) — The Magnificentist 11:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Ramya NSK

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

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

Unclear notability. Created by paid editor. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 17:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 17:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 17:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep – Clearly passes WP:ANYBIO - the subject is a recipient of Filmfare Award for Best Female Playback Singer – Tamil , a notable honour. Besides, she has about 100 songs in multiple languages to her credit. — Vensatry _(talk) 09:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - The subject is a notable singer in Tamil films.--UKSharma3 ( User | talk | Contribs) 14:04, 27 July 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Charles A. Davis

Charles A. Davis (  | 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 person. As CEO of a venture capital firm, Davis' name appears in news reports as a "Davis said" mention a few times, but no significant independent coverage to be found of him. WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 16:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 16:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete -- no claim to notability outside of his company Stone Point Capital, which itself has been deleted multiple times. No sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - yet another dude who took a million dollars and made more. We are not Mangefundpedia. His company is not notable, and neither is he. Bearian ( talk) 01:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete We just do not have the sources to show that Davis is notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:58, 8 August 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Marlowe Gardiner-Heslin

Marlowe Gardiner-Heslin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Short, unsourced BLP that fails WP:NACTOR. BangJan1999 15:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 16:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 16:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Actors are not handed an automatic free pass over WP:NACTOR just because they've had roles, but there's no indication here (or locatable anywhere else) that he's been the subject of enough reliable source coverage to actually demonstrate that he meets any of the criteria. Bearcat ( talk) 19:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Article is completely unsourced and so devoid of content I don't know that it even qualifies as a full stub. Independent search turns up nothing to suggest that notability is established, either under WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR; certainly no reliable sources. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - many many actors have appeared in a movie or two in supporting roles, and maybe in three plays. That does not make him a notable actor. He also fails BLP for lack of reliable sourcing. Bearian ( talk) 01:07, 8 August 2017 (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. — Spaceman Spiff 23:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

A Strange Shadow

A Strange Shadow (  | 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 and WP:FILM. As per WP:UGC IMDB is not a reliable source to prove notability. Domdeparis ( talk) 15:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Note - Page has been moved to A Strange Shadow. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 16:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: A Strange Shadow Ochena Chaya Bhaskar Banerjee

• Delete Fails WP:NFILM with no substantial coverage in reliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 ^{( talk, contribs)} 22:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete for failing WP:NFILM with not even trivial coverage in unreliable sources. I tried. -- Ifnord ( talk) 17:11, 9 August 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Captain Obvious

Captain Obvious (  | 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 does not merit an encyclopedia page. It is a popular culture expression and this page may be considered an advertisement for hotels.com. Fails GNG. Jip Orlando ( talk) 21:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete. Certainly fails WP:GNG, as it doesn't seem to be a direct topic of coverage in any reliable source. Also a clearcut violation of WP:NOT#DICT (specifically section 3. regarding slang, and idiom guides). Lastly, seemingly very much a WP:COATRACK to shoe horn in mention of a promotional campaign. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Hotels.com, which has a section on the site's advertising mentioning the Captain. Although there are scraps of coverage, he's not notable independent of the parent company (some advertising mascots take on a life of their own or become important cultural figures, but not him). The expression isn't notable either, as seen when it failed the previous AfD (which was pre-mascot). -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 12:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Strong delete and do not redirect. This is a widely used (if poorly documented) term. It should not be specifically connected with a specific company using it in a specific commercial. On the other hand, we lack the good documentation to show notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I oppose the redirect under the same rationale. Unless/until that campaign gets some dominating cultural currency on the term somewhere years down the line, this is just a common (well, not common, but certainly widely known) turn of phrase. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete and Oppose Redirect. A redirect would be an extension of an advertising campaign. As far as keeping the article, I agree that it's more a topic for TVTropes/Urban Dictionary than Wikipedia. Power~enwiki ( talk) 00:34, 4 August 2017 (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) — The Magnificentist 11:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Alphense Boys

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

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

A lower tier amateur football club in the Nederlands. No evidence of any notability, and clubs at this level have no inherent notability. An attempt at making this a redirect was thwarted, hence this AfD. Fails WP:GNG   Velella   ^{Velella Talk}   15:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Before this discussion is closed. Below and in the article, I have proven that Alphense Boys easily meets the WP:GNG and WP:ORG. However since the initial discussion was about the game against Montfoort in the Dutch national cup that makes Alphense Boys notable by WP:FOOTYN, I request the closing person also to undelete VV Montfoort that was unjustifiably deleted while it participated in the very same game. It is also notable by GNG and ORG and also exactly by the very same rule (FOOTYN) and highest level national soccer event. Furthermore, VV Montfoort has additional National Cup appearances and continued to additional rounds in this case. For Alphense Boys this was a rare first for a club at this level. This has to do with its "colorful" past that makes it extra well covered in the national, regional, and soccer press. gidonb ( talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 16:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 16:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 16:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 16:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Redirect - possible search term but non-notable. Giant Snowman 18:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep - per below source showing they played in national cup, meeting standard club notability requirements. Giant Snowman 17:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Passes FOOTYN, has played in a national competition, namely 2011–12 KNVB Cup. Fenix down ( talk) 15:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep per national cup appearance. @ GiantSnowman: do you want to reconsider? Number 5 7 10:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment: There's nowhere this could be merged as a middle ground solution? There doesn't seem likely to be enough WP:DUE content on this topic, based on coverage in WP:Reliable sources to be much justification for retention of this article. It's also worth noting, since it's been referenced, that WP:FOOTYN is an WP:Essay, not a WP:guideline or WP:Policy, meaning it has no more weight as policy direction than we would put on any one contributor's !vote in a discussion. And I doubt that national cup provision would survive community scrutiny, honestly, if you crunch the numbers and think about just how many non-notable clubs, completely uncovered by reliable sources, would then qualify for articles. However, aggregating such clubs into a handful of parent articles might be a solution you could get a fair number of editors around, though it would require some post-AfD legwork and coordination. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • There seems to be quite a lot of coverage of them from a brief search on Google News. WP:FOOTYN is indeed an essay, but keeping articles based on national cup appearances is also WP:AFDP – I can't recall an AfD on a club that passed this threshold being deleted in the past 10 years, and there have been a lot of AfDs on the subject. Number 5 7 22:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • @ Fenix down and Number 57: do you have a source for the KNVB Cup appearance? I had a trawl through Socerway and couldn't see it? Giant Snowman 06:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC) reply
      • @ GiantSnowman: RSSSF confirms the 2011*12 appearance. Fenix down ( talk) 07:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep meets FOOTYN, GNG, and ORG. This football club should never have been listed for deletion and discussion should be closed as snowball and speedy keep. gidonb ( talk) 02:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment Nominator says he AfDd this article after changing it into a redirect was reverted! The redirect was reverted because clearly notable subjects should not be redirected out of the blue to other articles. That's plain vandalism. Subsequently AfDing such articles does not make the situation any better. It communicates a lack of respect for community conventions and a lack of research before deletion procedures. There's a long history of attempts to delete Hoofdklasse clubs from Wikipedia. All have failed. Recently one was closed as speedy keep after a clear snowball. Situation here is similar. Not one person approved this nomination! gidonb ( talk) 16:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment Especially ridiculous is the claim fails GNG without providing any detail how. Club has almost 100 years of significant coverage in the media, including in all out of all general national newspapers. Did nominator even bother to take a look at these? I wonder! gidonb ( talk) 18:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Let's take a quick peek together:

Alphense Boys in national daily newspapers:

• NRC Handelsblad
• Trouw
• De Telegraaf
• De Volkskrant
• Algemeen Dagblad
• Nederlands Dagblad

Alphense Boys in just a few major soccer news sources of the Netherlands

• Voetbal International
• Voetbal in de Bollenstreek
• Regio Voetbal

This does not yet include the historic articles in national newspapers, almost all accessible through delpher.nl, all broadcasters, all major regional newspapers through their websites and delpher, and local newspapers, accessible through their websites and regional historic databases. The idea that there would be a football club in the Hoofdklasse that does not meet the WP:GNG comes through as not very serious. gidonb ( talk) 18:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep per most of above. Club Oranje ^T 07:08, 7 August 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 20:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Patrick J. McGinnis

Patrick J. McGinnis (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Claim to notability appears to be that he had a small part in popularising a neologism. Everything else seems run of the mill and the refs don't help much - interviews, mentions etc. Nothing here establishes WP:GNG   Velella   ^{Velella Talk}   15:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 16:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 16:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete -- notability not established. Likely an advert or an autobiography. Not notable as either "venture capitalist, author and speaker"; Wikipedia is not a speaker's bureau to help subjects book their speaking gigs. K.e.coffman ( talk) 17:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - yet another guy who took 10 million dollars and made more, coining a neologism along the way to further riches. We are not Managed-fund-pedia. Essentially no reliable sourcing. Bearian ( talk) 01:02, 8 August 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 20:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Gregg Strouse

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

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

Very short unsourced BLP which fails WP:NACTOR. BangJan1999 14:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 16:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 16:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 16:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Not notable, even the films he has done since those listed on his page cannot save this. — Wylie pedia 02:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete nothing here to support a claim of notability and nothing found in a Google search to add to the article. Alansohn ( talk) 13:56, 7 August 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 20:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Eric Taylor (Brazilian musician)

Eric Taylor (Brazilian musician) (  | 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 BLP that fails WP:NMG. BangJan1999 13:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Should have been BLPPRODed while has no coverage. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 13:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 16:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 16:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - an unsourced BLP of a musician without a full-length CD or equivalent. Bearian ( talk)
• Delete a non-notable musician. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:35, 8 August 2017 (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. — Spaceman Spiff 12:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Krishna Kumar Chatterjee

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

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

from my POV, being one of candidates to presidential posts does not grant passing WP:POLITICIAN and I don't see any references showing passing WP:GNG Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 13:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - I declined an A7 as I believe there is a claim to significance but do not see notability. In looking for info I did not find any significant coverage but did find passing mentions. ~ GB fan 13:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 16:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  17:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  17:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete, unless somebody can write and source something more substantial than this. Being the first woman in a country's history to run for president is certainly a valid potential notability claim that can lift a non-winning candidate above the norm — but while admittedly I'm not an expert on India, from what I know the given names "Krishna" and "Kumar" are far more usually male, not female, names. So we would have to reliably source the claim as true before we could accept it as notable, because there's already a major red flag suggesting that its truth is in question. Bearcat ( talk) 23:00, 8 August 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 20:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Doolphy

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

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

Last nominations was by SwisterTwister closed as No-consensus where it did not even consider a part of contribution. Alas! there was no participation. Or No one even bother for this one. From last tag of notability to till date, no established anything significant for encyclopedia purpose. Article writes about features. If we even try to improve the writing, one paragraph will be left. Even after one paragraph sources does not establish Corpodepth. Reviews are covered by non-notable entities. Light2021 ( talk) 13:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 14:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 14:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete: The article describes the product features, along with links to several at-launch reviews. That is sufficient for basic verification but I am not seeing evidence of attained notability, by WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG. AllyD ( talk) 14:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete its a sales brochure, complete with 3 pricing options. Declined as a G11, but I'd say it's almost G11 so a good borderline case to bring here. Legacypac ( talk) 16:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment I found two sources that look reasonably usable as RS:

• "Project Management App Doolphy Launches; Needs to Work on its English", Gigaom, October 2010 - review with four paragraphs of independent critique of the app.
• "Doolphy, otra plataforma para gestionar proyectos y tareas en grupo", w:es:Republica.com, May 2010 - review in a Spanish-language publication that seems reputable.

The founder has won awards and has other articles about him, but those articles each have only one sentence about this product, such as:

• "También es presidente de Doolphy, un gestor inteligente de proyectos en la nube."
• "El currículum empresarial de Palao se extiende a la presidencia de Doolphy, que es una plataforma de gestión on line que cuenta con más de 3.000 empresas."
• ""Si alguna vez queréis crear una empresa, adelante", invitó el director de Doolphy, una empresa de software de gestión de proyectos que tiene ocho empleados."

If I combine the weight of all these sources with the sources in the article, the total weight still seems borderline for notability. Dreamyshade ( talk) 02:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete None of the sources presented above qualify as independent coverage in reliable sources. These are press releases that cover the CEO or whatever this person's title is - and rely on company related sources. Also, most of the sources are one word or one line mention of this product. Not enough for WP:CORPDEPTH and not enough for WP:RS. This has not garnered coverage in the main stream press of any language. Wikipedia is not platform for promotion of indiscriminate product information - see WP:ISNOT. Fails WP"GNG. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 03:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- just a product brochure, complete with a list of features. Sources listed above do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Trivial mentions do not wikipedia notability make. K.e.coffman ( talk) 07:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. The only in-depth coverage is in WordPress and primary sources, such as interviews, which are not reliable for establishing notability. No in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources has been found. Films that may eventually take the subject past the notability bar are stated to be in production or in development, but they can't establish notability before they actually exist. Bishonen | talk 10:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Gino McKoy

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

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

I can't find significant coverage of this individual in multiple sources. Coming in 3rd in a youth competition, and having his song briefly mentioned in a couple of media sources does not rise to the notability level of WP:GNG or WP:BIO. ... discospinster _talk 12:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. None of the sources listed under "references and external links" represent reliable source coverage about him — they all just briefly namecheck his existence, while failing to have him as their subject — and nothing here entitles him to an automatic presumption of notability in the absence of enough reliable source coverage about him to satisfy WP:GNG. We are not an alternative LinkedIn on which people are entitled to have articles just for existing — certain specific markers of achievement have to be attained, and certain specific standards of sourcing have to be present to support them, but nothing here satisfies either part of that equation. Bearcat ( talk) 18:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The individual has received significant coverage in a number of reliable secondary sources which are independent of the subject, in compliance with WP:GNG guidelines. Placement in youth compete is biographical article content and should not be taken into consideration as proof or verification of the individual’s notability as proposed by the WP:AFD nominator. The article and its contents re in compliance with WP:BLP guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.2.183 ( talk • contribs)

— 68.47.2.183 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

If he's received significant coverage in a number of reliable secondary sources which are independent of the subject, then kindly show some actual evidence of that. The "references" present in this article right now sure don't show it — he's not the subject of any of those sources, but merely has his existence namechecked within coverage of other things, which isn't what WP:GNG requires. Bearcat ( talk) 15:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per the above. I am unable to find in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources; subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO at this time.  gongshow   talk  00:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep The included references provide secondary sources of biographical information and also directly reference the individual’s original creative endeavors and are in compliance with the subject criteria. Included references meet requirements for significant coverage not requiring original research, are reliable secondary sources and are independent of the subject. WP:GNG stipulates that the subject is not required to be the main topic of the source material. This individual's notability is not temporary; references span from 2006 to present. WP policies stipulate that fame or infamy is not to be considered as an inclusion requirement. As for meeting or not meeting WP:MUSICBIO at this time the information included in the article can be considered as biographical and not necessarily subject to those requirements as individual meets other inclusion criteria. As the article cannot be unilaterally excluded due the subject's meeting of other criteria, the article should remain. — Preceding Nerdbyte comment added by Nerdbyte ( talk • contribs) 01:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC) reply

GNG does state that a person does not need to be the main subject of a source, true — but it also states that a person does still have to be more than simply mentioned in a source that contains no substantive or useful information about him at all besides that mention of his name. That's what you're missing here. Bearcat ( talk) 17:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete as wp:Too soon. I'm on the fence about his current notability but if the future pans out as it looks like in the article then, at that point, subject will easily cross into notability. -- Ifnord ( talk) 21:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

I stand by my prior comments. My evaluation of the sources shows that more than one provide a substantive bio of the individual, including personal background history and profession. The article outlines his background in music and film, leading up to current involvement and corroborates with individuals and relationships to whom his relationships can be cross-referenced. Articles also document the history of his production company as well as office locations and project slate. An original composition is used as key a point of comparison of music as leveraged in context to audience perception of athletic players in a college textbook which was published a decade ago. Sources referencing his creative endeavors include project budget, timeline, cast and crew, distribution rights, all of which speak directly to his role as producer of these films and outlining his involvement as screenwriter. News dating back to 2006 corroborates his role as composer and musician. The second bio written specifically about him outlines in more detail his creative involvement in referenced projects; thus he is the primary subject of more than one reference and as the subject of the articles refer directly to his involvement in his industry, it absolutely qualifies as more than a passing mention. The articles in which he is the primary subject substantiate and support the other references as his role is clearly outlined. Once more, as he meets more notability requirements than he does not, I cannot vote in favor of deletion. Nerdbyte ( talk) 03:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply

The only sources present in the article that provide a substantive bio of McKoy are WordPress blogs and primary sources, which are not types of sourcing that assist in demonstrating or building notability at all. Exactly zero of the reliable sources present in the article do anything more than namecheck his existence within coverage of something else. Bearcat ( talk) 17:10, 10 August 2017 (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. While commenting that pages have to be "trashed" might be a bit too harsh, consensus is clear that this person's notability has not been established. So Why 20:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Amar Fayaz Buriro

Amar Fayaz Buriro (  | 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 received some press mentions (namechecking) but i believe they are not enough to pass WP's notability requirement. it was previously created at Amar Fayaz.. Saqib ( talk) 12:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 16:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Subject fails to meet general notability guideline. Most publicity appears to have been self-generated. -- Failosopher ( talk) 15:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 21:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete a non-notable blogger. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:52, 4 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep he is notable language engineer, there are references in Pakistan's leading newspapers about his services. Recently Sindh Graduate Association a Sindh Government funded organization has awarded him Gold medal on his services. -- Indusian1236 ( talk) 10:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC) reply

If there are references in Pakistani newspapers, please provide here to establish the notability. The medal by Sindh Graduate Association is non-notable as well. -- Saqib ( talk) 10:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Amar Fayaz Buriro is Sindhi and urdu writer and he is wel known language engineer of Sindhi and Urdu languages. He had recently developed Sindhi OCR and auto tagging system. -- Thaheem Ubed ( talk) 11:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC) reply

— Thaheem Ubed ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Dear Saqib! I appreciate your reservations. But You know mostly Pakistani newspaper websites are image based, but here I am mentioning some text based references where you can easily find the Amar Fayaz Buriro's work where even minister and senator of Pakistan senate have praised his services. Moreover Amar Fayaz has been writing several articles and researches on language development and engineering. Here I am submitting some links:

• http://onlineindus.com/english/SGA-awards-gold-medal-to-Amar-Fayaz-Buriro-on-his-achievement-/8616
• http://epaper.dawn.com/DetailImage.php?StoryImage=22_02_2017_119_005
• https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/188398-Revisiting-Mohenjodaro
• https://tribune.com.pk/story/1335883/software-convert-handwritten-sindhi-words-code-developed/
• https://www.harappa.com/blog/free-complete-indus-font-package-available
• http://sel.org.pk/event/slf-karachi/
• http://awamiawaz.com/79575/
• http://sindhipoint.com/001/
• http://www.thekawish.com/beta/images/2016/Nov/07-11-2016/Page12/P12-13.htm
• http://www.dailysindhhyd.com/2017/03/09/%D8%B3%D9%86%DA%8C-%DA%A9%D9%8A-%D8%B0%D9%87%D9%8A%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%86-%DA%AF%DA%8F-%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%8A%D8%AA-%D9%BE%D8%B1%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%8A-%D8%AC/
• http://nuktanazar.sujag.org/mohenjodaro-indus-valley-civilization-international-conference
• http://www.aalmiakhbar.com/blog/?p=607
• http://humsari.com/

It is mentioned here that above links are just newspaper & magazine links. Therefore I will really thankful to you that please may terminate the deletion tag from article. Secondly Sindh Graduates Association is the wel-reputable organization of the Pakistan. They award only 4 Gold medals in a year, and in education and language development they had awarded him this medal. Regards and Thanks in advance. -- Indusian1236 ( talk) 11:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Most of above sources are not RS, while RS such as Dawn, The News, Express Tribune only name check the subject. -- Saqib ( talk) 11:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Dear Saqib, It is humble request that please may keep this article. As I have requested that in Pakistan 90% newspapers are online in image based. Therefore please may consider this request. Regards -- Indusian1236 ( talk) 11:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Clearly no notability for the subject. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 12:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep This is my earnest request that please keep this article because there are various references available on the article page. Ok I may delete writer/blogger words from the article. But he is notable language engineer. I request again. -- Indusian1236 ( talk) 13:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• OK dears... I respect your decision. You may delete. I have raised my hands. Regards. I love and respect Wikipedia... The resource of knowledge and wisdom. -- Indusian1236 ( talk) 15:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• But if possible please let it alive on wikipedia for one month. After one month you may delete it. This is my request. -- Indusian1236 ( talk) 15:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC) reply

No sorry, the page has to be trashed soon. -- Saqib ( talk) 15:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Ok dear Saqib go on plz. Stay blessed. Regards -- Indusian1236 ( talk) 15:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Deeply troubling, for me, to see a vote which wants to see an article "trashed soon". This process should be in good faith, certainly not personal. Non-English references are hard to track, many appear above. I vote notable enough. -- Ifnord ( talk) 22:04, 9 August 2017 (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 Draftify. Moved to Draft:Informational Development. So Why 20:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Informational Development

Informational Development (  | 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 read like a neutral presentation of the views of reliable sources, but partly like an opinion essay and partly like a blurb for a governmental program. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Yes it is clearly an essay like structure with sources thrown in to support specific point. Overall topic doesn't seem to be notable, as presented here, even if various aspects of it might be. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 05:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Note that topic notability is based upon the availability of sources, rather than the state of sourcing in articles. See WP:NEXIST for more information. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• This is just a work in progress, and rather requires more research. A point about controversy in Africa, where resources could be better spent on basic living will be added soon. It was a mistake that it was published so soon, and normally it should have gone to sandbox. I'll also search for some community initiatives and roles of NGO. Perhaps listing by State fell short of the point. Thanks for your efforts. -- PasswordDoesNotGoHere ( talk) 13:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment - The author appears to be proposing draftification, which is fine with me. Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Draftify per PasswordDoesNotGoHere's comment above. Also, the topic is notable and covered in reliable sources, as evidenced particularly from searches in Google Scholar, as well as some coverage in Google Books and News. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 12:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Draftify. I don't have a problem with this... Seems like a good solution in this case. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 23:06, 1 August 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 20:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Jeevni Bai

Jeevni Bai (  | 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 source. Search produces nothing. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 10:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete a non-notable musician. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:36, 29 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete fails the GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 15:33, 6 August 2017 (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 18:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Tina Jung

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

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

Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains ( talk) 01:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 07:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 07:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 07:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 07:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. An actress does not get an automatic free pass over WP:NACTOR just because she's had a role — her role in Kim's Convenience was a minor guest appearance in two episodes, not a main character, and we have no way to know whether she's playing a major or minor character in Jigsaw since the casting has been announced but the plot and characters aren't known at all yet. For an actress to be considered notable just for having had roles, she has to be the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG — but exactly zero reliable sources about her are being shown here, since the sourcing consists of her IMDb profile, an alumni profile on the website of her own alma mater, and a casting announcement for Jigsaw which just namechecks her existence while failing to contain even one word of content about her besides her name. This is not the kind of sourcing that it takes to get an actress into Wikipedia. No prejudice against recreation if and when the sourcing can be improved. Bearcat ( talk) 23:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete As above minor role. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 06:07, 3 August 2017 (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. postdlf ( talk) 14:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

History of Canadian first ministers

History of Canadian first ministers (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Unreferenced and unnecessary WP:LISTCRUFT. Links to provincial/territorial lists duplicate Template:Canadian First Ministers, and short blurbs about x province/territory are pointless when we have "List of premiers of x," "Premier of x," "Politics of x," "History of x," and just plain "x" articles. Madg2011 ( talk) 17:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 17:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 17:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• None of this is referenced right now but I wouldn't think LISTCRUFT "indiscriminate or trivial lists" applies to this effort to provide a overview of prime ministerial history per Canadian jurisdiction. Is this not in a main article somewhere? Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Yeah, Listcruft isn't exactly the right concept here but I think the idea holds. This article has an information component, which is covered with more depth in numerous other articles, and a list component, which duplicates the list found in the Template at the bottom of all relevant articles. It doesn't provide "a overview of prime ministerial history," it provides links to a list for each province and, for some provinces, a very short summary of that province's political history. It barely touches on the actual history of first ministers or the history of the role of first minister. I don't think there's any encyclopedic value here. Madg2011 ( talk) 18:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• I suppose all the provincial histories, if referenced, could be used to flesh out Premier (Canada)#Role. In fact that main article isn't very long and needs some TLC and expansion, anyway. It's pretty ahistorical right now, and readers might benefit from some of the information that's currently in this list. And of course there is no federal content in the nominated article to worry about, anyway. So, while it's easier to say than do, I'd suggest merging relevant referenced content to Premier (Canada). Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I don't see this as particularly useful as constituted; each of the positions already has a standalone article at Prime Minister of Canada or "Premier of [Province/Territory]" which delves into the history in a lot more detail than the blurbs present here — which is precisely why fully half the sections here consist solely of a "see also" link to the main article with no additional content beyond that. I agree that it's not exactly listcruft per se, but I also agree that it's not exactly useful per se either. Bits of content here might possibly be salvageable by transferring them to the more relevant articles, but there's very little genuinely substantive need for it to be presented in this form. Bearcat ( talk) 21:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete -- does not quite work as "list of lists" article and contains a bunch of unsourced original research. WP:LISTN fail as the topic has not received sufficient attention from independent sources. K.e.coffman ( talk) 17:50, 29 July 2017 (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. So Why 19:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Chun Wo Commercial Centre

Chun Wo Commercial Centre (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Unremarkable back-alley office building of which there are hundreds, if not thousands in Hong Kong. References to a famous tea house having stood on the site or SYS having walked down the street where the building now stands do not sufficiently establish notability of the structure there today. The article may also be viewed somewhat promotional for the building, especially since there is some weight on its location, "famous" shops nearby, walking directions from public transport as well as purchase agreements for office space as reference. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Not a notable building, does not meet WP:GNG.-- Pontificalibus ( talk) 12:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete as being a run of the mill commercial establishment. Notability is not inherited from a famous street to a business located thereon. In a large, international city, about 1 street per 50,000 inhabitants is notable, and in every old neighborhood, no doubt many famous or infamous incidents have happened in the past. The claims on this page are spammy to the point of being farcical. President Obama once lived in my election district - who the hell cares? Bearian ( talk) 19:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus was, when all the promotional content had been trimmed out, that the article was a fallow description of itself with little encyclopedic value. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

PizzaRev

PizzaRev (  | 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 thought I could remove the advertising from this one (two separate listings of pizza ingredients, and their two brilliant innovation of letting the customers wait in line,and letting them choose what they want on their pizza. But there's nothing left but PR and notices . DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment – I created this article in March 2015. Here is a link to the last significant edit I performed on the article in April 2015. Notice how this version does not have a promotional tone, and is neutrally-written based upon what reliable sources state about the topic. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep – Meets WP:GNG and WP:AUD. Concerns with promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. See my comment above for more information. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete because the promotionalism outweighs any good, and this is because this is what the article was before removing the spam (1-24 sources counted, and now after: 1-17 so it hardly helped), but it's still promotional so it violates our WP:Five pillars of having non-promotional articles; copyediting is not what actually help here if it only sugarcoats the promotionalism instead of actually resolving it. GNG quotes that we need independent coverage, not simply secondhand press releases, see Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as: brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business, simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued, routine notices of facility openings or closings, quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources or passing mention". Worse, it seems we were taken advantage of since 1, 2 and 3 accounts so far added advertising. Sections 1 and 3 are advertising through and through and the middle section is basically sourced to the company's own menu website, so it cannot satisfy WP:ORGIND and WP:CORP. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 17:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete as, to quote WP:Notability, we need proven evidence the article can be improved, and in the last week of AfD's occurrence, none has happened, and I took the liberty of searching sources, to only find this and this; because the listed sources are only announcements or notices, that wouldn't be the evidence of independent reliable coverage independent of the subject, therefore mainspace is not the place to host such content. What WP:Notability also says is that articles must exist with no concerns in WP:What Wikipedia is not, the nomination here has cited WP:What Wikipedia concerns. SwisterTwister talk 18:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Meets WP:GNG Cllgbksr ( talk) 05:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Cllgbksr The GNG itself says A topic is presumed notable if it is not excluded under the WP:What Wikipedia is not, but since the current article is an advertisement (a violation of WP:Promotion) and, not only have I shown examples above but 2 other users have also, how can this promotion concern be addressed by our policy? SwisterTwister talk 17:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply

I just read the article again, the only thing that might come across as promotional is the "Fare and operations" section. If that section was removed it would come across as simply informative. Cllgbksr ( talk) 20:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment – As stated in my comment atop this discussion, a version of the article is available that does not have a promotional tone ( diff). North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment - The easy evidence showing this article exists only for advertising is: (from the current article) The first PizzaRev location was....A second location opened....Pizza opened its first location....The first international location....Fares include....customers can have....a minority stakeholder.... All of this is in immediate and unquestionable violation of WP:Not catalog: Examples include, but are not limited to: listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and it wouldn't matter if they're verified facts, if they're still catalog information. WP:Not catalog is enough, and in the 2 weeks of AfD here, there haven't been any founded counterarguments showing the unapprovable article can actually be improved oncee an for all. SwisterTwister talk 21:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Whilst I tend to agree with SwisterTwister, a quick glance in google shows a majority stake was acquired by a former McDonalds CEO led fund, so the potential for improvement is there. ^[1]

CV9933 ( talk) 11:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC) reply

On what policy in this based in, compared to the Delete votes above which are? A simple stake is simply not enough for Notability here. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete The various references meet the criteria for establishing notability and fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. The references are either company announcements about a new restaurant opening or expansion plans. This review is probably acceptable as it is independently written. If another reference that meets the criteria can be found, I'll gladly change my !vote. -- HighKing ⁺⁺ 15:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- a smallish chain with no claim of significance. Sources do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH and consist of routine announcements and trivial mentions. The article has an advertorial tone and even includes a section on "Franchising". Wikipedia is not a franchisee prospectus or a directory listing. K.e.coffman ( talk) 20:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment - For the record, I want to add to my argument against the WP:GNG. In the "Notability" section, it clarifies what exaclty presumed signifies, and it's: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not. The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for [WP:What Wikipedia is not]. Simply asserting "Meets GNG" is a different argument than actually showing and finally showing how the article was improved. Compare the articles pre-nomination and post-nomination. If an article was as easily improvable, I myself would've volunteered but, since there's no meaningful substance to be found in the simplest searches here, I couldn't guarantee I'd make the article satisfy WP:GNG after all. Even then, I weighed the amount of news and what's available actually fits what WP:GNG itself later says: Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. Publication in a reliable source is not a good indication of notability. Self-promotion, autobiography, product placement and most paid material are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. Therefore, WP:GNG itself says articles must be in acceptable condition to not only be considered and weighed, but to have any viable chances. SwisterTwister talk 00:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Go easier on using bold - it makes the text difficult to read and understand. -- HighKing ⁺⁺ 14:52, 6 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete references are poor, some appear to be based on press release, obvious promo Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:30, 6 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I truly respect the oppose arguments here, whether bolded or not, which I alluded to in my Keep statement. I came to this article because it had a few unintentional list defined reference errors as a result of promotional material being removed. Normally I would have just fixed those but the article was also tagged for deletion which brought me here. I don’t really know much about pizza, let alone care for it; I can count the pizza chains that I know on the fingers of one hand. I want to avoid the argument other stuff exists, but we have over 100 US pizza chain articles alone and pizza chain articles in 23 countries worldwide. I find a substantial amount (read most) of them to have equivalent or lesser quality references than this article. In my view, this observation confers a precedent of general notability and actually with the promotional element removed I don't see an issue with this article. CV9933 ( talk) 16:40, 7 August 2017 (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. If any of the early "keep" !voters would like the text moved to userspace, drop me a line. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Laura-Ioana Andrei

Laura-Ioana Andrei (  | 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 was deleted back in 2015 because of no notability. She fails NSPORT and Tennis Project Guidelines. Now it's brought back in 2017 and she has done nothing in the interim. No WTA main draws. No minor league ITF wins. Only a couple victories at the lowest level of minor/minor league. Tennis Project Guidelines are pretty inclusive (most say too inclusive). Get into a main draw of a WTA event, play in Fed Cup, win a Grand Slam tournament as a jr, win a minor league ($50,000+) event. But playing and winning minor-minor league events is nothing. This player has done nothing notable in tennis. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 05:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 09:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 09:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 09:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Meets WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Hmlarson ( talk) 04:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Also, I see a challenged PROD in the article history, but not an actual deletion discussion or deletion. Hmlarson ( talk) 04:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC) reply

It was deleted in 2015. It was brought back the other day for some unknown reason. I don't see that this person does meet WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG at all. This aren't even minor league tennis events... they are minor-minor league. The lowest of the low. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 06:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Google News search results alone indicate WP:GNG. Hmlarson ( talk) 19:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Not even close. Those google results are almost exclusively for lists of appearances or scores. That is not GNG. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 19:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Perhaps in your opinion. Let's hear from other editors. Hmlarson ( talk) 19:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC) reply

It's not Fyunck(click)'s opinion, it's a wikipedia guideline. T v x1 21:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep - I had this undeleted recently because the article is listed at WP:WANTED (due to the large number of incoming links). Of course non-administrators such as myself cannot see what's in a deleted article until it is undeleted and this one turned out to be not particularly impressive. But I still lean keep because of the number of redlinks created by deletion does not improve the encylopedia (I know that's not an orthodox keep reason but hey, WP:NORULES). ~ Kvng ( talk) 15:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Actually that's backwards. We are not supposed to create red-links for non-notable entities. Red links are for notable things that need to be created. And as you write this many of those red links have been eliminated by me, with more to come. She is not notable for anything tennis related. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 19:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Links re-instated to active article, Laura-Ioana Andrei:

• Kajsa Rinaldo Persson
• 2017 ITF Women's Circuit
• 2017 Reinert Open
• Julia Wachaczyk
• Mirjam Björklund

Hmlarson ( talk) 19:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Great more backwards stuff. Article deleted for two years and we don't get to the red links, and now you revert the ones I fix. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 19:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Strong delete The tennis project is extremely inclusive, so if a subject does not meet that |project's notability guideline nor Wikipedia's GNG, it's crystal that we should not have an article on that subject. Also, doesn't this fall under WP:G4? T v x1 21:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC) reply

No. This was WP:PRODDED, not sent to WP:AFD so there was never a deletion discussion. ~ Kvng ( talk) 15:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Player does not meet the criteria for inclusion. Also fails NTENNIS. And what is this "strong delete", "weak keep" etc.? There only should be votes like "Keep" or "Delete" ( Gabinho ^>:) 20:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)) reply

@ Gabinho: Because this is a discussion not a vote. Any additional information participants can provide about their position can help us more readily reach a WP:CONSENSUS. ~ Kvng ( talk) 14:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Fails WP:NTENNIS. All these discussions about whether the subject specific guidelines matter at all is irrelevant, because she doesn't meet them. If evidence were demonstrated that she met them, I would reconsider. Smartyllama ( talk) 14:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete fails the notability guidelines for tennis players. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 ( talk) 21:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete fails WP:NTENNIS and WP:GNG. Citations only show basic coverage of tournament results.-- Wolbo ( talk) 13:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete: I would be very interested which cites Hmlarson thinks satisfied the GNG, because none in the article do. Any Keep vote here seems more by way of a kneejerk "OMG I see sources it must be notable!!" than any actual examination of them. Ravenswing 17:41, 9 August 2017 (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. Timtempleton's rewrite of the article was not challenged. If any of the early "delete" !voters still disagree, a second AfD can be raised; I would rather than happened than this article continually sit with an AfD tag on it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Formation 8

Formation 8 (  | 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 notability -- the references are just routine announcements. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

I also agree with deletion -- iantolee (who initially wrote this page)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 08:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 09:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete as easily looking around here found nothing but clearly labeled announcements, notices and all that, which can't be used as by WP:NPOV, WP:CORP and WP:N, so whether there's 20 or 40 of them, it's not significant. The differences between this and this are quite few, so it's not confident for notability, especially if it's simply an WP:Indiscriminate list. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 20:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - not substantive RS. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 06:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete: per Zppix. The sources are completely inadequate for either establishing notability or verifying claims. DrStrauss talk 20:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - I just added some new info. The firm was widely considered to be one of the most successful venture capital firms in Silicon Valley before abruptly dissolving in 2015, which might be why you didn't find info. They were returning a shocking 95% rate of return to their funds. Wikipedia is very weak on VC articles, largely because many of them shun the spotlight. I've done a couple of articles ( Toba Capital, Silversmith Capital Partners) to fill this gap - let's not delete this one and take a step back. There's more work to be done to source the partners and where they went next - I didn't have time for that because I felt the clock was ticking on this. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Would it make sense to relist, given the new info I found? I see that nobody has changed their votes, despite this having been a near USD$1B hedge fund that was massively successful. Am I allowed to relist or am I blocked because I participated in the vote? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Timtempleton's analysis. The firm received significant coverage in reliable sources in this 2013 article and this 2015 article from Fortune, this article from Business Insider, and this article from Reuters. The firm passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

  Cunard ( talk) 04:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Pinging deletion participants: DGG ( talk · contribs), Deathlibrarian ( talk · contribs), Zppix ( talk · contribs), DrStrauss ( talk · contribs), Iantolee ( talk · contribs) to see if the coverage Cunard and I found changes their votes. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:50, 9 August 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 20:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Nutcache

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

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

A typical company made by people. Nothing notable or significant about it, no sources are notable. used wikipedia to create profile or directory. Light2021 ( talk) 15:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 15:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 15:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Most of the existing sources seem borderline as reliable third-party sources. For example, business.com article has a named author independent of Nutcache, and the publication has editors. I found an enterpreneur.com article with coverage of Nutcache probably usable as RS. So that's not enough yet, but maybe somebody else can find more. Dreamyshade ( talk) 02:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC) Update: looking at the revision history, looks like it's only had one major contributor and they have only contributed to this article and other articles that have been deleted as promotional, so I can assume less good faith here; I've updated my vote to delete. Dreamyshade ( talk) 02:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete: fails WP:NCORP. DrStrauss talk 09:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete -- sources are blogs, trivial mentions and / or WP:SPIP, failing WP:CORPDEPTH. Just a private company going about its business, no encyclopedic relevance here. K.e.coffman ( talk) 07:38, 8 August 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 20:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Johnathan Staci Kim

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

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

Probable autobiography (created and mostly edited by Jonathankim1971 that fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. No sign of significant coverage in independent sources and article claims he is "best known" for role as shopkeeper who has an orange stolen from him. Being best known for a very limited role in an indie film is not " significant roles in multiple notable films" as the standard asks. The Village Voice citation is unverifiable as given and the probable actual target [17] doesn't mention the actor. The New York Times citation is similarly missing and a search of the Times (including archives) finds no matches. Other searches similarly empty but for IMDB page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)Edited to correct article history claim. Apologies Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Insufficiently sourced, written primarily by the subject. Doesn't meet notability guidelines. I've also asked for a block of the self-promotional account. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 19:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:NACTOR and the NYTimes reference is obviously fake. Dammitkevin ( talk) 20:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Not fake, just dead. I added a link from Internet Archive.-- Auric talk 21:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

(edit conflict) Auric found the probably intended target for the NYT reference I called "missing" above and it is not a Times article but a rebranded slurp from All-Movie Guide. This does not add to the subject's notability, but thanks to Auric for finding it. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

The "Kids" reference does mention him, but just as a credit.-- Auric talk 22:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Insufficiently sourced. Zhangj1079 ( T| C) 22:34, 7 August 2017 (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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply

The Creative Organization Project

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

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

not independently notable -- possibly a mention in the article on James E. Grunig is appropriate, but that article itself has some major problems DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete -- sources do not establish notability for this project. The purpose of the article appears to promotional in nature. K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:10, 19 July 2017 (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) Lourdes 02:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Colin Angus (explorer)

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

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

Alongside Julie Angus.

This one is tough. It was previously PROD'd [18] as questionable notability, and the PROD was removed because "he is published by Random House". There was also a previous AfD, which was deleted (not the article, but the AfD itself was deleted for lack of participation).