Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 1

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. J04n(talk page) 15:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Brown (motorist)

Joshua Brown (motorist) (edit | 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 individual asserted to have been the first individual killed in a self-driving car. The concern I have about this article is the car is not, in spite of news reports, a true self-driving car. Tessla markets this is a an "autopilot" feature. Individual is known for WP:1E. reddogsix (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This tragedy is shaking up the transportation industry, especially in the sub-sectors that are developing self-driving cars. It's all over the news, because automotive autopilots were touted as the safer way to get around, due to eliminating human error. It's also remarkable for being the first fatal accident in over 130,000,000 miles of all Tesla vehicles on Autopilot. --Shultz the Editor (talk) 00:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - So you have indicated why the article is popular, however, you failed to indicate how the article meets Wikipedia guidelines for notability. You have not indicated why this is not a WP:1E. reddogsix (talk) 01:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Omar Mateen, the shooter at the Pulse (nightclub), is a 1-event article and there was no problem with it. The events there shook up the LGBTQ community; the accident that killed Josh Brown shook up the autonomous driving community. --Shultz the Editor (talk) 04:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• And right there you just called out why this article is different than Omar Mateen. The accident that killed Josh Brown is shaking up the community...not Josh Brown. Josh Brown's only contribution to this accident was being there. If Josh Brown was the person shaking up the community, you might have something. But, he's not. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:1E. User:Shultz the Editor is correct that this story is a big one, but Autonomous_car#Safety_record and Tesla_Model_S#Autopilot are both already covering the crash itself and its ramifications in much more detail. That may end up being split into a fourth article about the crash or about self-driving car safety, but it looks like we don't have the grounds or in-depth sources for a full biography of the deceased here. --McGeddon (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep And re-title with the focus on the accident and its ramifications in detail. This is a significant event noteworthy in itself, but the specific victim (self-victim as he deliberately misused the system against its specific instructions) is not. The article should be about the event, not the biography of the victim except for details relevant to the accident. [[ aside - For example 8 driving tickets in the 6 preceding years, all for "failing to obey a traffic device or sign". All, very likely speeding tickets that the driver, a former Navy Seal asked to have reduced, a common thing for Judges to do if they "like" the driver. As an ex-Seal with no other issues, a high probability. ]] Jjk (talk) 13:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:1E. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As I argued in the talk page of the Tesla Model S article, this type of incident, like the plug-in car fires in the past, call for a lot of attention and speculation. Therefore, it is important for editors to keep in mind that Wikipedia is NOT a media outlet, we do not report the news (see Wikipedia:NOTNEWS), so as per WP policies the content has to be encyclopedic (see WP:NOT). IMO, the notable facts to report about this incident (Wikipedia:Notability) are just two: the fact that this is the first known accident with a fatal victim while the car was driven by a self-driving system, and second, it puts into question the reliability of Tesla's Autopilot technology (the objective of the NHTSA formal investigation). This content is already presented in the Autopilot section of the Model S article. And for purposes of WP:NPOV, the official statement made by Tesla is required. Considering the key facts, the driver's name does not seems to be notable to be mentioned, nor anecdotal content about him (I previously removed some of it). Yes he was a Tesla enthusiast, and for obvious reasons he is mentioned in the all the news about the accident, but remember that per Wiki policies, notability is NOT temporary (WP:NOTTEMPORARY). I think that the only case when there is justification to mention victims in accidents is when this person meets the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (people). To illustrate better, i.e. if the CEO of the company died testing its new technology, then I think he/she should be mentioned by name, but only if the company or the new technology are remarkable or significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded (notability!). Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 03:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The man himself was not notable to the world at large when he was alive - in 5 years (probably less) he will be totally unknown again. It is the accident that is famous, not the man in it.  Stepho  talk  04:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: There is nothing remarkable about this individual in any respect. He was a Navy SEAL, but doesn't pass Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Notability_guide#People. He was the head of his non-notable nine person company, which doesn't put him past Wikipedia:Notability (people). He graduated from University of New Mexico, but that doesn't make him notable under WP:ACADEMICS either. Let's be clear here; the car crashed. That's what is notable. It could have been anyone in that car, in fact the car could have been empty, and the accident would be notable, but not the person in the car that crashed. We don't have an article about the driver of the truck the car crashed into, nor should we. That this individual was involved in a car wreck does not make him notable anymore than the tens thousands of people killed every year in car wrecks around the world. He was simply a passenger. In the driver's seat, but a passenger. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Tragic but WP:1E pretty much covers this. Nothing is notable about this person's life....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:BLP1E, coverage should belong in a sentence or two in self-driving car article. Meinnaples (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as still nothing for convincing independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 15:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Ragbirds

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

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

My searches have found a few several links (9 pages) using "The Ragbirds Ann Arbor Michigan band music" but it's the majority of it is all local and likewise for Highbeam, there's still nothing convincing for any solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  07:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  07:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  07:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable musical group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Johnpacklambert: Wikipedia:Non-notable. --Cavarrone 08:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Did a quick online search about the band and found a couple of links, which I've added to the article, in case this serve as incentive for someone else to research further. Aust331 (talk) 11:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Reliable sources can be local. For example, there's significant coverage in The Oakland Press [1] and Michigan Radio [2]. Significant non-local coverage in PopMatters [3] and The Boot (owned by Townsquare Media) [4]. At least one of these sources claims that their latest album was released on Rock Ridge Music (an important indie label). Significant coverage in The Holland Sentinel [5]. That article claims that their latest album peaked at No. 20 on a Billboard chart, which is true: [6]. So the band meets criteria 1 and 2 of WP:MUSICBIO. Dontreader (talk) 09:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment This band also has a single that peaked at No. 58 on the Japan Hot 100 chart [7]. The article merely needs improvements. For example, lots of claims made in the article are supported by sources that I provided, so they should be used as inline citations. Dontreader (talk) 09:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Under GNG, the question is not where coverage originates but whether it is reliable, independent, and significant. The Oakland Press, Michigan Radio, and PopMatters are independent and reliable, and the articles from each provided by Dontreader each constitute significant coverage as contemplated by the guideline. In the alternative, it is beyond dispute that the subject meets BAND Criterion 2. Therefore, notability is presumed under both GNG and NMUSIC, and, as the nominator has advanced no other rationale for deletion, the article ought to be kept. Rebbing 20:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep passes GNG and WP:NMUSIC#2, kudos to @Dontreader: for his researches. @SwisterTwister: could you please withdraw this nom, and could you please make decent WP:BEFORE (as requested countless times) before rushing with such inappropriate nominations which only turn in a wastle of time for the community? Wikipedia:Competence is required. Cavarrone 08:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Many thanks, Cavarrone, for appreciating the effort I made to show that this article is notable! Dontreader (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per sources found by DonTreader; seems to meet WP:GNG. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 15:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler De Nawi

Tyler De Nawi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Looks as case of WP:TOSOON Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't find any sources published before 2016, so TOOSOON can apply here. Also not seeing evidence of WP:ENT unfortunately. -NottNott|talk 09:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and basically terminated by BLPPROD too, nothing at all convincing of independent notability whatsoever. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- looking through news sources, it seems like he's had some coverage from significant outlets, Sydney Morning Herald, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, and is relevant not just for one television show but is subject of broader debates about diversity in Australian media more generally. This draft is lacking for references (I'll try to add some later today) but I think the entry is notable Innisfree987 (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC) Update - just added a section about his relevance to Australian media debates, and links for some of the biographical claims. Not all the details are verified yet but there's a lot more media coverage on him, and from significant Australian outlets, which could confirm more about his biography. It seems to me the best solutions are to add references or delete details that prove unverifiable, not to delete the entry, which I definitely think is notable. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The subject of the article appears to meet WP:BASIC; in addition to the sources already in the article, we have [8], [9], [10], and [11]. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Dahl

Ken Dahl (edit | 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 only two sources I could find were Perez Hilton and D-Listed (the two artists mentioned in the article). Is being covered by Perez Hilton enough to establish notability, or are more reliable sources needed? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah no, delete--not notable. Drmies (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Self-written vanity page for obviously non-notable "musician" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet wp:NMUSIC - no known record label, hasn't charted, no substantial articles in reliable sources. LaMona (talk) 04:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I've heard of him - he's more of a NYC socialite than a working musician. Perhaps too soon. Bearian (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Long (entrepreneur)

Phil Long (entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Founder of three car dealerships in Colorado Springs with no indication of notability per WP:BIO. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. OnionRing (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I tagged this as a speedy delete under A7 since I could see no claim of notability. I can still see no evidence of any notability. He was a successful car dealer in Colorado. Probably a nice guy. That's it. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No assertion of notability, fails WP:GNG. I also would have speedied it. GAB^gab 01:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Yes, it should obviously have been speedied A7. if you look at the contributions of the editor who declined it, there's a clear pattern of failing to apply the "credible" part of the "credible claim of significance or importance" criterion in WP:CSD#A7. One WP:SNOWBALL article after another gets its speedy declined, usually with the edit summary "asserts enough significance to survive A7". The end result is a sharp increase in the number of pointless, time-wasting AFDs. OnionRing (talk) 05:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This person does not satisfy WP:GNG criteria. --Dcirovic (talk) 23:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - local businessman, one of hundreds of local car dealership owners in the United States. Bearian (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shubees

Shubees (edit | 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 article on new band not yet notable per WP:BAND. Speedied once already on notability. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, just blog reviews. WP:TOOSOON at best. OnionRing (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete I have no idea why Adam9007 thought this article "asserts enough significance to survive A7"; it asserts no significance whatsoever. The only possible "significance" asserted is that the band are signed to Wiener Records (a subsidiary of Burger Records), but as that label's writeup clearly states: "Wiener allows any band to have their tape mastered, pressed, packaged, and promoted through Burger, but without the Burger label." So, clearly releasing material through Wiener is not an assertion of any type of notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Article lacks references that verify any facts stated. A search reveals only PRIMARY sources with a self-promotional bent. Unable to locate a single third party, independent reference that would indicate notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No references, and I can only find social media and promo media. In fact, I'm not sure the band still exists... ah, no, they still post to their Facebook page. But I don't even see any mention of performance dates. LaMona (talk) 04:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 02:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PowerBar

PowerBar (edit | 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 any significant notability. A claim to be "the first energy bar" is not substantiated . Claims in other articles suggest that others might stake similar claims. A single reference about a take over and nothing else. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep It isn't hard to find info: Food Business News, Food Navigator, Biz Journals, Free Lance-Star (1998), Toledo Blade (1999). Much of it is about the sale of PowerBar by Post, but there are also mentions in sports events. It may well be a "has-been", based on articles I found from the late 90's, but that means that it could be historically notable. It was one of the early sports bars, a product line that may be waning. LaMona (talk) 04:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, this WAS the first energy bar, they did operate out of one of the few highrises in Berkeley, their sign was a local landmark for years. it needs refs, to be sure.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is an old time, pioneer energy bar company and product. Bearian (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RICS Americas

RICS Americas (edit | 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. Should merge with Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors Rathfelder (talk) 21:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Merge doesn't require AFD. Just be WP:BOLD. Pburka (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Annie McElwain

Annie McElwain (edit | 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 clear failure of WP:NACTOR – is known for one, and only one, role: Disney Channel's Double Teamed. The article's only sourcing is in relation to that role (and subject merits only passing mentions in those). Otherwise, a clear WP:GNG failure – literally no mentions in Variety, THR, EW, Deadline, etc. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable actress. Only one role, and that is not a role that alone makes her notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as still nothing at all for his own actual notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Her". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Even this June 2016 source says "she has left acting in the dust". — Wyliepedia 12:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 02:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Native American Music Awards

Native American Music Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There is not enough media coverage to establish that this music award is notable. Of the current references, only one is not the NAMA website itself, and that one does not mention NAMA at all. All references I found were passing mentions of the "X won Y Native American Music Awards" kind, plus this piece that reads like a press release, not news coverage. Even if better sources could be found, the current article would have to be rewritten in its entirety to bring it in line with what those hypothetical sources will report. Huon (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Yes, these awards are notable and mentioned by innumerable news source [12]. It needs better citations, but the article is already flagged for needing citations. Yuchitown (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It took some effort to search for sources, but I think there's enough for this to pass WP:GNG. Article in Billboard from 2002, another article in Billboard from 2003, NYTimes in 2000. American Indians and Popular Culture calls NAMA "perhaps the most significant single development in the American Indian music industry since 1990" and goes on to talk about it for a couple pages. It's listed in a few books of Native American culture, like Native American Voices and The Extraordinary Book of Native American Lists. Then there are the many articles, many of them in local papers (from many regions) which cover the awards through a particular artist, like The Times Tribune or Indian Country. Broadening the subject to also be about the 501c3 behind the event, New York Post and MTV have articles about the organization's successful proposal to add a Native American Music Grammys category. Not a slam dunk, but there seems to be enough. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notability appears to be clear and established. I'll defer to User:Rhododendrites's contributions as perfect examples. KaisaL (talk) 03:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable within the Native American community and with adequate outside, third-party coverage noting its importance. Passes GNG. Quality and notability are not the same thing. Montanabw^(talk) 02:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A ton of hits on a news search, which clearly shows the article can be improved. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isaak Presley

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

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

Recent article creation by now blocked socker. Challenged WP:BLPPROD. Fails not just WP:NACTOR, but looks to fail WP:GNG outright – only mentions at Deadline and TVLine are in relation to Stuck in the Middle (TV series) (i.e. passing mentions), and nothing at the more mainline sources like Variety, THR, EW, LA Times, etc. WP:TOOSOON. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the univision source referenced in the article is reliable. May well pass WP:NACTOR for the criteria of having a large fan base, for example the page view statistics for the article over the past 30 days average at 336 a day which is quite incredible- if wikipedia was a business this would be one of the last pages to be deleted. Atlantic306 (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good lord you're awful at this. Please quote WP:NACTOR back to us, Atlantic306. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even more arrogant and condescending than usual. WP:NACTOR criteria 2 " Has a large fan base or a significant cult following." It couldn't be more plain, only one criteria needs to be passed. You are trying to delete very popular pages Atlantic306 (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • My attitude can be explained by you not learning from past mistakes at AfD. Once again, the extent of sourcing is what determines whether a role qualifies for "cult status". There is zero sourcing demonstrating this here. All your page view stats demonstrate (and 330+ page stats is not particularly impressive – page views in the thousands would be more significant) is that Stuck in the Middle the series has generated interest – you have utterly failed to demonstrate that Presley is independently notable or independently generating interest. Indeed, the lack of press and media coverage of him rather demonstrates that he hasn't. Finally, "popularity" is not a determining factor in whether articles are kept – quoting WP:Notability (people): ""Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary." What determines notability is being "...significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" in multiple independent reliable sources. Which isn't the case here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Presley is pushing towards the limit of notability, but as a minor we need clear passing that limit before we should create an article. We do not have that yet. If the shows he is currently involved in get major traction we will at some future points maybe have enough sources to pass notability requirements, but we do not at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there's still nothing at all for any actual convincing notability, we all know those works were as trivial as his current filmography is thus nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 07:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:22, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DZLS

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

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

No assertion of notability, and possibly a hoax, as it was created by a sock of a banned user. I found a streamlink that says there's a college radio station with the same callsign, but that's not what this article says it is. MSJapan (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We could easily G5 it, but there's clearly no notability here whatsoever, as all the sources are either wikiclones or meaningless, brief mentions. Even if it's not a hoax, it certainly does not deserve an article. GAB^gab 01:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there are no reliable sources present for the subject's notability to be established. Sixth of March 04:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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. J04n(talk page) 15:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amala Rose Kurian

Amala Rose Kurian (edit | 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 actress - does not meet WP:NACTOR. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Kurian is a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep First of all, she acts in non-English-language film and serials. So the sources aren't going to be easy to find. However, she has had "an important role" in the television serial, Sthreedhanam. She also seems important for her role as Urmilla in Padasaram. These two roles and her named role in a 2012 film just barely get her over the NACTOR guideline. Would be nice to have someone who knows Malayalam to chime in. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP Agree with Megalibrarygirl Uncletomwood (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have added some links and categories in the hope that some Malayalam editors will be alerted and expand the article further. At this stage it seems that she is just notable but more details would help. MurielMary (talk) 09:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there's still not enough substance and there still not being anything else convincing for independent notability, thus Delete. SwisterTwister talk 03:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

H-81 (helicopter balloon)

H-81 (helicopter balloon) (edit | 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 describing a particular photo of a child's helicopter-shaped balloon that someone found on Pinterest. (There was also a link to buy "50pcs blue cross country vehicle mylar balloons" from a Chinese-supplied website, I'm not sure whether that was spam or the creator thinking it was a useful supporting reference, but I cut it as a purely commercial link.) Article doesn't meet any speedy deletion criteria, and the initial prod was reverted by an IP, so here's an AfD. Both the photo and toy plainly fail WP:GNG. McGeddon (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. Chickadee46 (talk|contribs) (WP:MCW) 22:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. --Petebutt (talk) 09:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete ASAP. Does not meet WP:GNG, and lots of other issues. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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 merged/redirected to Mick Zais. (non-admin closure) ansh666 05:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Zais

Ashley Zais (edit | 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 previous debate closed as no consensus because no one commented on it at all. Basically we have as sources a press release from her college, and a note that she was hired as a minor worker in a political campaign. Neither of these provide passing GNG, one because it is from her college, the other because we do not even create articles on all political candidates, even presidential candidates, interim coordinaors at the campaign headquarters. Ashley's father Mitchell Zais, as a former US army general, and president of Newberry College, may well be notable, but Ashley is not. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment On further investigation we do have an article on Mitchell Zais, that I have no linked to, it just uses his nickname Mick. It is unclear to me in the article what his military title was when he retired from the military. It talks of his military career but was written because he served as Superitendant of Schools for South Carolina. The fact that Ms. Zais' father is not only notable but has an article but it was not linked to from this one shows the draw back of having lots of articles on non-notable people, they are extremely hard to maintain reasonably. The fact that her father was explicitly mentioned in one of the references makes me think the references were not adequately consulted in actually building the article and are mainly there to obscure the fact that this is a beauty pageant fandom page with minimal extra information.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Mitchell Zais. Keep the redirect. IF she does more with her life, it will be easy enough to spin out a stand-alone article. Montanabw^(talk) 02:15, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not seeing anything here outside of a 2007 Miss South Carolina USA beauty pageant title, which doesn't fulfill any Special Notability Guideline as far as I am aware. Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I boldly merged this article into Mick Zais. If anyone has a problem with that, just revert. IMHO, best not to have a redlink in the Miss South Carolina list, as that will just encourage the article to be recreated. This way, should her career become more notable, the info exists to recreate the article from the redirect. Montanabw^(talk) 05:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Mick Zais § Family. A merge has already been performed by another user (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Euryalus (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Salas

Helen Salas (edit | 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 article lacks any sustained coverage that would pass the GNG. For example the Washington Post article mentions her name, but that is it. It is about the winner, with nothing than names for the runner ups. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment She didn't even actually win the Miss USA Nevada Title, she got it after the winner was disabrred for disorderly behavior, so she didn't even win an adult level title.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Again, presuming that winning at the state level is not considered inherently notable, we have nothing more, it appears. Montanabw^(talk) 02:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - While the previous holder of the Miss Nevada USA title which the subject inherited might be notable for the win and subsequent "firing" by Donald Trump, which was extensively covered in the media, this subject apparently is not. Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 17:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as still nothing convincing for an independently notable article. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Creator requested deletion (G7 speedy) (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamental Schrodinger Equation

Fundamental Schrodinger Equation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Original research from someone who gave the equation an eponymous name. Cannot find any other references that exist. While this may not be pure FRINGE (as mathematically it's not completely ridiculous) this is not an article to have on Wikipedia at this time. Primefac (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I was unable to find independent, in depth, reliable sources describing this approach; hence this article fails notability guidelines as described in WP:GNG. The sourcing all comes from a single author and so the article is original research on these primary sources. An article without the possibility of reliable sourcing should be deleted. --Mark viking (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not delete This article has been published in peer reviewed journals. It appears that the people suggesting its deletion are not aware of the importance of published research. I see no grounds for its deletion. You can check the two articles given in the reference if you have any doubts. I have added an additional source as well. Physicstasy —Preceding undated comment added 20:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia does not publish OR. Zero impact. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• Do not delete Xxanthippe, what do you mean by "wikipedia does not publish OR"? and how can you claim zero impact. Please be more specific and descriptive. I have seen several pages on wikipedia that have even less sources than this page, for example, Quantum carpet. Physicstasy —Preceding undated comment added 07:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete now, but no objection to recreation if independent sources are found Physicstasy, you are clearly the author of the two references and the originator of this topic. You should keep out of this discussion as you are not independent and you should not write an article or edit an article about your own work. You are also clearly a newcomer to Wikipidia and you need to study our policies and guidelines. Your comment about Quantum carpet is covered, for example, by WP:OTHERSTUFF. The more important point is that we do not have an article about everything that is published in a scientific paper. We need it to be noticed by others to meet the notability guideline. If it gets widely accepted, then perhaps the article can be recreated. Mark viking above has it right. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes I am the author of this article. I see your point also. I have deleted the page so now you can stop arguing and delete it anyways. Thank you for your time. Physicstasy —Preceding undated comment added 09:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Julianna Erdesz

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

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

Erdesz is a non-notable model and actress. The references are long articles that mention her in lists of people at parties, not the type of thing to pass GNG. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per NMODEL and NACTOR. Montanabw^(talk) 02:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with Montanabw, subject does not meet WP:NMODEL or WP:NACTOR. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 02:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails GNG and the relevant Special Notability Guidelines. Carrite (talk) 17:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:TOOSOON needs more significant acting roles that would generate coverage in reliable sources. Atlantic306 (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Suleiman Akwuodo Salihu Aruwa

Professor Suleiman Akwuodo Salihu Aruwa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

nothing notable was found about the subject except a few research uploads on research websites. Subject obviously fails WP:GNG —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 17:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 17:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 17:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 17:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No independent sources. No impact on scholarship. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete as I have found nothing at all for his own convincing notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. As an accountancy leader or dean of a large university, he theoretically might be notable, but I don't see what he's done in leadership posts that make him notable. Being a dean at a university or president of a chartered accountancy organization does not automatically confer notability. Bearian (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Skyvia

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

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

This article doesn't contain any real assertion of importance, but it does have 6 (was 7, but I removed a trivial mention) sources. To review them: 1) is a blog post that quotes and closely paraphrases press releases. 2) is a post on a site that takes content submissions from the companys that are listed, 3) is a shortish how-to article on a small blog site, and 4) through 6) are reviews on people's personal blogs. These are not the multiple, reliable and independent sources that we should have per WP:GNG. I looked for more, but all I could find were more press releases and other output by the developers. MrOllie (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The page's current references are weak but the subject is covered in numerous independent news articles confirming some notability. Meatsgains (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial mentions and press releases, as far as I have found. If I'm overlooking a good source please advise - MrOllie (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, what about the independent mention from ZDNET - http://www.zdnet.com/article/the-advent-of-the-citizen-developer/ for example? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourfanat (talk • contribs) 14:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC) — Yourfanat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

A trivial mention as part of a list of five examples. We need independent articles where Skyvia is the main topic. - MrOllie (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Independent articles where Skyvia is the main topic" usually are created by different cloud MVPs in the form of review on their blogs, there are a lot of links to Skyvia from such type of resources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourfanat (talk • contribs) 14:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not only have I not found better, there's nothing else currently convincing especially since it was only recently released. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All I find are short "how-to" articles that are on minor computer web sites. None of these are analytical and none are reviews of the software. There are some online sources that are somewhat better than the ones in the article now, but still they all are of the "how-to" nature, so I don't see this meeting notability. LaMona (talk) 04:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 02:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Costas Panagopoulos

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

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

Does not meet the requirements of WP:NACADEMICS for (;;) (talk) 16:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. for (;;) (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. for (;;) (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Searches may have been hampered by a misspelling of the subject's name, which I have fixed. With an h-index of 21 [13], he may pass WP:PROF#C1, but the case for WP:PROF#C8 as editor-in-chief of a notable journal seems clearer. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As DE notes above, WP:PROF#C8 is satisfied here. In addition, there are 814 hits[14] for his name in GNews. The name is fairly unique, so I don't think there are many false positives there. After looking at a fairly large sample of those hits, they basically all seem to be instances of mainstream news media quoting his opinions on various matters as a political scientist. So probably also passes WP:PROF#C7 on those grounds. Nsk92 (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as argued above he seems to pass criterias 7 and 8 of WP:PROF Atlantic306 (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As above.--Ipigott (talk) 10:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above discussion. --Dcirovic (talk) 23:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above discussion as well. -- there seems to be consensus that notability has been established, can we delete the notice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:85:C201:774E:A111:FF67:5797:DC8F (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, we need to wait for the discussion period to end (in a couple more days) and for an uninvolved Wikipedia administrator to close the discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow keep (NAC). Please follow WP:BEFORE when nominating an article for deletion. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Avinash Dharmadhikari

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

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

Does not pass WP:BIO Uncletomwood (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and Speedy Keep Clearly fulfills WP:GNG by multiple WP:RS. No compliance with WP:Before. This is a laughable nomination. WP:Snowball -- User:7&6=thirteen 15:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose for same reasons as User:7&6=thirteen above. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE DELETION. if, for no other reason than if I had my picture taken talking to the 14th Dalai Lama I'd expect an article about me too. But there are good reasons, I mean, just look at the article. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 19:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep even a superficial search on google and google books reveals more than enough (sources and discussion) to make this person notable. Clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:PERSON specifically WP:Politician. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No clear consensus has formed or appears to be likely to form between the different sides of this debate. A number have also commented on this being a borderline case, and others have offered commentary on whether the potential for a conflict of interest is a justification for deletion. I relisted this myself seven days ago, and since then most of the new arguments have advocated inclusion. Taking the entire two weeks into account, this seems sufficiently contentious to close as a no consensus at this time. KaisaL (talk) 01:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jayne Joso

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

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

I'm uncertain whether the subject of this article passes WP:GNG. There's at least one review of a book of hers at the TLS, and several external links to 3:AM magazine. The article was overly promotional and has been cut to bare bones prior to this AfD. If it survives, it can be built back up. See also Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Jayne_Joso --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC) Tagishsimon (talk) 01:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this unreferenced biography of a living person, which violates policy. The version before it was trimmed back to a stub was promotional, and included many unreferenced quotations, another policy violation. Compliance with these policies is mandatory and non-negotiable. The editor with a conflict of interest must declare their connection openly, and comply with all our policies. This is also required. If the article is properly referenced and the references show that she meets WP:AUTHOR, then I will happily change my mind. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTPROMO and failing WP:GNG,WP:AUTHOR. This article was created in 2009 when the subject had just released her first novel. The intent was to promote the subject. Over the years, there has been long term COI editing. More important, there is a refusal to disclose the COI. I find this particularly troubling. If we examine the notability, the subject fails GNG because there is hardly any significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. While a novel written by her has been reviewed in the TLS, reviewing alone is not a claim of notability. The links to the 3AM Magazine are (1) A short story written by her - not an independent source, (2) An interview - primary source and possibly because she has submitted stories to the same magazine and (3) A review of her book. None of this satisfies WP:AUTHOR. Borderline notability combined with undisclosed COI editing is a good enough reason to delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Assuming the factual statements on the reception of her work in the long version are correct, which I imagine they are, she seems notable. I'm somewhat dubious that a quotation from a review of and in named publications, with a rough date, is actually "unreferenced". Johnbod (talk) 04:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Johnbod, please read our content policy Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for all quotations. That earlier version does not comply and the COI editor has refused to comply. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - borderline notability, and I think it's better to apply WP:TNT here: if someone without a COI wants to write the article from scratch and can demonstrate notability, then fine, but until then we shouldn't have an article. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I converted a few of the refs given in the EL section to inline, and went on a search for more. For someone who has been a published novelist for many years, it's interesting that there's really nothing substantional in terms of reviews or mentions. There does seem to be one review behind the TLS Paywall, but outside of that the sources are very weak.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your efforts, HappyValleyEditor. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, thanks. These days, young literary novelists get far less coverage than they used to, in the UK at least. Johnbod (talk) 14:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • No thanks necessary, but thanks anyway! it's true that authors can turn it around and make a name for themselves. I recall having an deeply unsuccessful author friend twenty-five or so years ago. He later wrote a book about a boy in a boat with a tiger that was quite popular.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The editor Dictionarylady has endured enough, and this is not the way forward. And the subject appears notable.

• The AFD nomination is highly unfair. The article was eviscerated then the AFD was opened, with nomination stating "The article was overly promotional and has been cut to bare bones prior to this AfD. If it survives, it can be built back up." The main editor, who is the one who has full access to various sources, is intimidated from restoring the article and improving from that base. If an AFD was going on and a deletion-voter stripped the article like that, I would strenuously object. Deletion voters can place tags and they can make positive edits, but others must be allowed to expand the article and address tagged problems. It put the article in horrible shape, so of course it is going to look bad.
• I agree with User:Johnbod that the quotes in this version of the article before it was gutted (in this forceful and intimidating and unfair diff: "Remove uncited, tenuous or otherwise unctuous content per COI problem"), with approximate dating, is referencing. It seems absolutely incorrect and unfair for the article to have been tagged as being unreferenced (as it was in this edit at 20:48 June 20), when it included multiple references (albeit in External links), and when that referencing was being discussed and had been improved by the editor. This was not the first imposition of that incorrect tagging. It sees like a slap in the face, or multiple ones, to characterize it as unreferenced.
• The Jayne Joso article was PRODDED with notice to editor at 13:05, 20 June, "because it appears to have no references" in my view clearly inappropriately, because the article did clearly have references (including link to Times Literary Supplement review, although that link was dead).
• The editor was tagged as having potential COI at 15:52 June 20, then reasonably enough they replied, deleting the notice with "No COI, no gain from anything, factual information regarding education. Many thanks for taking care about this matter."
• The editor was then (at 16:51 20 June) hauled to the COI noticeboard (Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Jayne_Joso, see my comment there) where there has been inappropriate (IMO) dismissal of their disclosures in edit summaries about association with the subject and dismissal of statement that they do not have a financial interest, as if they are lying when they say they have some association but that does not rise to a COI. The editor has little experience in Wikipedia and rightfully can be wary of being permanently labelled somehow as having a COI. Opening an AFD was announced at the COI noticeboard discussion "to see what the hivemind thinks", which IMO is as if it was punishment.
• I do not see where "the COI editor has refused to comply" (as User:Cullen328 asserts above) about using inline citations. They were editing to improve the article in response to tagging and user talk page comments, and their edit summaries show they thought they were providing the necessary referencing by giving links to the sources in External links section and, after the article was gutted, by footnoting from the listed titles of works by the writer. For example, see this diff with edit summary: "Novels: trying to add these references from the Times Literary Supplement but need help with links and tidying... please help". That added what I would call an inline citation. I don't think they understand they can/should restore the full quotes and other deleted material.
• The article was earlier (13:03 june 20) incorrectly BLP PRODed with threat of deletion in this edit. The PROD was a few hours later removed by this edit by the PRODing editor who acknowledged that was incorrect (because article was created before march 2010). But the editor Dictionarylady was editing during that interval and experienced it. (And the removing edit itself is one that installed the false, incorrect assertion that the article had no sources.)
• I don't know if the editor knows they can respond at the COI noticeboard discussion. They were given notice about thbut that notice does not say so. They were not given notice of the AFD, and i don't know whether that would have invited them here. (I presume they know of the AFD from tag at the article, but I also presume they don't know how to handle COI and AFD processes.)
• The deletion-voting editors might accurately respond that these practices are what is done normally. But these are too many actions, taken too quickly, and it appears to me this is overwhelming and coming down way too hard. We all started with just one article. We ourselves would have been driven away if treated like this.

For all the above, and because we know sources exist (though they are not all accessible online, e.g. the current Times Literary Supplement link goes to the beginning of a review but the rest is behind a paywall), I say "Keep" and stop this proceeding. --doncram 19:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't start this AfD, but I made the editor in question aware of it here, and encouraged them to participate. I also explained the COI issue here. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Great that you have done some explaining to the editor, as shown in at least four sections on your Talk page. But you did open and pursue the COI proceeding which created the appearance of problems, which is where the AFD nominator came from. It is reasonable for them to be overwhelmed and unable to instantly correct all issues.

I see acknowledgement there that you were mistaken, apparently until 16:39 June 20, after the PROD and COI and more and more (some back-and-forth interactions at Talk pages)(21:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)), about the history of the article, that you thought it was as brand new article. If it were, demanding inline sourcing would be reasonable.

I see there that, about external links vs. inline citations, the editor has noted "It is tricky to go back and reference sources now, but I will be careful to do so in future", and then asked for some prioritizing. The reply refuses to prioritize, and in continuing discussion eventually points to one flowery phrase, at the same time as asserting there is "plenty that is contentious". The challenging of everything, including by deletion of everything in the article, is unfair. Especially when there is nothing contentious, no BLP problem tarring the reputation of someone, no question about the accuracy of any quote, and no other specific problem. The editor was participating in removing flowery/promotional phrasing, and they have responded dozens of times, politely and reasonably, to demands at Talk pages and in edit summaries, by their replying at Talk pages and in edit summaries.

• Add this challenge over at Commons to the photos in the article, opened at 22:18 on June 20, to the list of proceedings opened. That manufactures dispute over the photos that have been used in the article since March 2015, with no complaint from Jayne Joso or any photographer or anyone. That adds confusion about how to communicate in our klunky systems, between commons and here.

This is too much. This is death by 1000 cuts but with them all inflicted at once. The central complaint may be about COI, which may be complicated, which may verge on requiring the editor to out themself (which is a violation of our wp:OUTING policy), and which is not well handled in these multiple actions. This is not how to guide or negotiate anything. --doncram 01:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Be careful not to conflate the actions of several editors, Doncram. Some of what you describe was my action, but I didn't delete any article content or start this AfD. I was trying to help the editor understand the need to source articles, respect copyright and declare their apparent COI. When I raised the issue at the COI noticeboard, you'll notice that I was not calling for action against the editor, but rather requesting help dealing with the article. I'm not responsible for how people respond to that request. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Responding:

• Right, I understood the big deletion and the AFD creation were by another editor and I did not mean to imply otherwise.
• In this edit I strike out my incorrect statement that opening the COI (at 16:51) was before realising the article was old (at 16:42). Okay, then the COI was opened by you just after figuring out the PROD action was incorrect, instead. And after tagging of the article for appearance-of-COI, incorrectly tagging it for having no sources, and several back-and-forth interactions at their Talk, your Talk, and in edit summaries.
• At the COI discussion, I earlier repeated my incorrect understanding of timing (despite my considerable effort to put in clock timings and specific diffs) and I reasoned from that (incorrectly) to suggest the COI was biased, and I apologize for that. However you explicitly invited help on the article content, while the article had incorrect "unsourced" tag displayed, and that conveyed negative tone in a different way.

Look, we're all used to tagging and to having different versions of the same issue raised in multiple forums, and we know when we have to respond and when not. But when I try to put myself in the shoes of a new (in terms of cumulative experience) editor who hadn't learned to sign comments and didn't even have a Talk page and wasn't "welcomed" (thank you for at least doing that first), I think there was way too much thrown at them (even though it was just a few things), and you were part of that. And I think this AFD should not have been started. Although this is done all the time to other new editors, by other experienced editors. --doncram 21:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be getting drawn into debate about process here. I accept my share of the blame for that, but I don't think this is the place for such discussions. The question here should be whether the subject is notable or not. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I also have access to the TLS articles, if those would be helpful to anyone. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now, mainly per doncram's argument. Note that some of the issues raised here are concerns for article improvement, not deletion. Yes, the author may not have fully understood verifiability. However, the sources were still in the article, which clearly shows that the article doesn't need deletion - just fixing. It sounds like some editors here dislike the editor for the conflict of interest and aren't considering alternatives to deletion such as article improvement because of the COI. Regarding WP:TNT, it's not in such a state at all, and deletion is not cleanup. Other editors have removed promotional language and helped resolve many of the major issues. Appable (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be happy to change my vote to keep (and indeed help rewrite the article), if notability can be demonstrated, Appable. If it can't that's not something that can be fixed. At the moment, I'm not yet convinced that significant coverage exists, but I am open to persuasion if more sources can be found. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is no biography, and apparently no sources to create one - 'Author wrote two good books one in 2009 and one in 2011' is not a biography per WP:Author. A biography talks about a person's whole entire life, not two books Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I went back to an earlier version and tried to see if there was referenceable information - especially in the awards section. Unfortunately, none of the awards turn out to be truly awards in the sense one usually means. She was granted a one-week writer's stay at The Coracle, Ireland, International Writer's Residency. I assume that isn't in itself notable. She was given a grant from the Sasakawa Foundation, GB, "and our annual literature prize was awarded to Jayne Joso for a research visit to Japan, the setting for her next novel." here. And she got funding from the Arts Council England. These all are nice but none of them add up to notability IMO. Her books are held in a couple of dozen libraries in Worldcat. Her publisher, Alcemi, is a small, seemingly one-person publisher in Wales. It is a shame that this got caught up in the COI issue because that should not be what determines whether an article is kept. However, I fail to find that this meets WP:AUTHOR and regrettably must !vote delete, but without prejudice because this person could achieve notability in the future. LaMona (talk) 00:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am sticking withh non-notable, the sources are not there. The "Sakawa award" in the last ref is another example of fake author hype, in that it is actually a tiny (£2000) "prize" for travel. That's essentially an artist travel grant, and it is not particularly notable. I do not see "death by a thousand cuts", but rather an author with very weak notability and too much hype. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 01:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I noticeably found nothing better at all, only 124 library holdings. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- As a biography this article falls flat as Alanscottwalker points out. There just aren't the necessary sources to meet WP:AUTHOR. Reyk _YO! 07:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete I searched, and found nothing, nothing at all [15] except her 88 twitter followers [16]. I even checked the Times Literary supplement mentioned above here[17]. It looks to be mere listings of books published. I am not saying that there is nothing, only that if a contemporary author is notable, something will turn up on a search. Unless, of course, it is WP:TOOSOON. E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC) Reversing iVote, see below.[reply]
  • Let me know if you want to see the full text of the TLS articles, E.M.Gregory. The first one cited includes two short paragraphs on one of Joso's books, and the second one is a three-paragraph review of another of her books. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Cordless Larry, yes, please, I would like to see that.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• If you drop me an e-mail, E.M.Gregory, I will reply with them attached. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• keep the 3 short reviews now on the page scrape over the notability as per our customary interpretation of WP:AUTHOR. More persuasive was my search of old TLS articles via factiva. There I found a feature article, a Western Mail interview entitled Author's Notes (presumably a column on writers) 1 October 2011. Also a review of Perfect Architect in Morning Star (British newspaper), by Paul Simon, 23 August 2011. E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this article is not books. We write book articles for books. There is still nothing that comports with WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. No third-party independent has written the author's life and we need multiple substantial for a WP:BLP. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC) Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In practice bio articles often are combo articles that are mostly about the artist's works, and may have very little about their life story. An artist is important because of their work. We usually don't need a separate article on the list of works of a given architect, for example; we list and describe the works in an article titled at the architect's name. It's fine for the main coverage of a work to be within the bio article. For notability, the works do count, absolutely, in my view. --doncram 02:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• in the couple of years I've been doing AFD on authors, WP:AUTHOR part 3, has been operationalized as: 3 reviews of a a book comprise a work of sufficient notability for the author to pass the notability bar. Plus the interview I referenced above is a profile that gives some details of her life. And publisher's pages and the author info in "card" catalogues and other indexes of writers are sufficiently reliable to be used in writing articles, albeit do not count towards notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No. That's not what Author says, and it makes no sense in the context of the policies concerning biography cited, moreover, notability is not inherited, her life is not a thing, a book. The single interview you reference gives nothing of her life to make a sourced biography, and its not independent because interviews are not independent, and they are primary. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I have to agree with Alanscottwalker. Notability is not inherited and a simple review of the work does not constitute notability for the artist. GNG is very clear that significant coverage about the subject is needed. Should GNG not be satisfied, we look at WP:CREATIVE. The criterion 3 of creative is very clear that the author should have created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work AND such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The important thing is the "AND". Over here, I see no indication that her work is a significant or well-known work. And yes, interviews are primary and we don't use them for notability. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep We have reliable third party review of Jayne's work and we have primary sources for bio information. That is typically what we have for creative types including academics. Not hugely over the bar, but over the bar IMO. The article _was_ overly promotional. Now it's overly short. Hobit (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree here. We need reliable secondary sources about the subject to pass GNG. If a subject cannot pass GNG, we look at WP:CREATIVE. Over, here the subject passes neither. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I am on the same page with doncram on this one. This article on soso goes pass GNG Maybeparaphrased (talk) 01:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kanikasamy

Kanikasamy (edit | 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, a commissioned officer awarded third highest gallantry award only once. Fails WP:SOLDIER. No references as well to verify the subject's notability, fails WP:BASIC. KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 10:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I'm simply not finding anything better and that's not surprising for someone who, of course, is going to be sourced by archived sources. Delete as there's currently simply nothing otherwise convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete (carried out by Jimfbleak). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cambrian Valuers Limited

Cambrian Valuers Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

PROD removed by IP editor. Page reads like an advertisement and the firm lacks coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KaisaL (talk) 01:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DNS NXD advert overriding

DNS NXD advert overriding (edit | 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 included the cat as T, although arguably it really belongs in O (does this template support cat1, cat2?).

Looks like this was originally an article on Barefruit Ltd, that didn't survive PROD. For some reason, the entire article, which still seems to be mostly about this apparently non-notable organization, was redirected to this article.

Looks like the article was unilaterally moved by Scientus, indeffed for socking, and was created by an SPI with some considerable copyright issues.

The content seems (?) to be a duplication of DNS hijacking, but someone who is more tech savvy will have to confirm that. Searches didn't come up with much other than duplicates of the WP article. Verbatim searches come up with a few hits, so there may be WP:COPYVIO problems, but I didn't find anything that I could say 100% didn't originate from WP.

Overall, it seems like a poor attempt at WP:PROMO, and should either go WP:TNT, delete per WP:NOTE, or maybe merge what little is cited and relevant into DNS hijacking. TimothyJosephWood 14:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. TimothyJosephWood 14:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I was editing the article but really felt that the topic was not notable, nor was the content of sufficient quality. Kbrose (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is not the same as DNS hijacking; it is spam served when a wrong URL is entered. I can't find reliable secondary sources so it is not notable. It should not be redirected to the hijack article, hence delete. DeVerm (talk) 05:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I was intrigued by the title, and was thinking this might actually be an interesting topic. Then I took a look at the article and my WP:PROMO meter pegged when I read the first sentence. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted G7 by Sphilbrick. (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 15:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Adeeko

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

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

This article is not notable. It doesn't cite any external links and just about ordinary person. NepaliKeto62^{Talk to me} 13:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 02:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accession of the United Kingdom to the European Economic Community

Accession of the United Kingdom to the European Economic Community (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article is not notable it is stub and have no external links. NepaliKeto62^{Talk to me} 13:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Perhaps that's because you started this AFD a minute after the article was created. Give an article a few minutes, and stop WP:BITEing the new editors. OnionRing (talk) 13:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 12:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 12:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It was speedily deleted, now it's back, with a new speedy deletion tag added. I've declined the speedy. I think we need an Afd result to stop the cycle. I've also added a category, Category:United Kingdom and the European Union. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, that was the old CSD tag, I forgot to remove it... --Randykitty (talk) 13:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I should also mention that User:Andrew Davidson has just started working on it, adding a book reference. So the nomination rationale of "no external links" no longer applies -- especially in that references and not external links are really what is called for. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:13, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the old Cfd tag said it duplicated Enlargement of the European Union: but that main article didn't mention the UK negotiating team, which is now cited here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is an overlap with other articles because the UK joined at the same time as Denmark and Ireland (Norway dropped out). But there seems to be scope for this topic to be developed about the UK's case in particular, as there was a ten year history of negotiations leading up to this point. And, of course, there is special interest in the UK's position after the recent referendum and so it seems good to clarify and expand its history. I have made a start on expanding this and tying it into the wider web of topics. Andrew D. (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve per Andrew Davidson. OnionRing (talk) 14:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I was surprised to see that there was no article on the process by which the UK eventually joined, which took a number of years and actions to happen. This could even eventually grow into a main article United Kingdom and the European Union, which encompasses the whole topic -- still very much ongoing. Anyway, it does seem to me that the original rationale no longer applies, given improvements. The "accession" topic needs to be covered, somewhere, even if just as a stub, for now. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve per all of the above. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 17:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Unless someone can point to an appropriate merge target. 1973 enlargement of the European Communities does not fully cover the subject in the depth of this outline. I would caution against including anything on BREXIT over 40 years later in the same article. That is a different subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Interesting and notable subject, worthy of research and expansion. — JFG ^talk 21:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Per all the above.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Euryalus (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Branza de Cernique

Branza de Cernique (edit | 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 short article in Romanian about a type of cheese. Was first tagged for speedy deletion as a hoax by a different editor. In contesting the deletion, the author denied it was a hoax, but admitted it was a little known product, stating on the article's talk page:

This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because there is a local cheese that is named Cernique Cheese. It is selled only localy so is very little known.

So the author is acknowledging there is no notability in the product. On that basis I proposed deletion via PROD, but the author then removed that template. So here we are, a non-English article about an admitted non-notable subject. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 13:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not English and if it is "very little known", we can safely assume that there are no WP:GNG-compliant sources to back up anything, leaving us with an unverifiable stub. Having only 4 hits in a regular Google search (all of them Wikipedia or mirrors) is only more evidence of its non-notability. - HyperGaruda (talk) 07:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow Delete Erm, a Romanian language article in the English Wikipedia? And I also found no sources at all. Fails WP:GNG. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and I would've frankly PRODed, nothing at all convincing. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Speedy delete tag was improperly removed, but am closing this as an AfD rather than A7 as it gives a greater permanence to the close. Euryalus (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dicky Pontilli

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

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

Contested speedy deletion, just don't see anything notable about this person. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 11:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not sure what this is about - appears to be about two people, but doesn't even give their full names. There are no references and nothing to suggest notability. Suspect it's just teenage nonsense. Neiltonks (talk) 12:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete for obvious CSD:A7 reasons. Not sure why there was even a need to take it to afd: speedy tag was improperly removed by creator. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with the speed of light This is the word article I have ever seen in Wikipedia, ever. It not only is about two totally unnoteworthy teenagers, it does not even attempt to make them seem at all noteworthy. We get no information about them doing things like attending school even. Just that they use facebook and snap chat. It is technically two people, although that just makes it even less clear what is up with the name. what is the last name Pontilli, is it the last name of Ricky, or of Danielle, or some sophemoric combination of the two last names. I do not think I have ever seen an article this bad, ever.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This article tells me we should have higher standards for article creation. The creator has made 3 edits, creating this page, making an edit to this page, and adding this name into the article on Cupid. I think we need to make a required number ofedits before creation of a first page on Wikipedia. As I said above this is by far the worst page I have ever seen. I guess in some ways hoaxes are worse, especially deliberate ones that survive for months, but at least they are not as banal and useless. Also they generally do not so lack in encyclopedic style.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as a blatant hoax. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Turn 7: Bloodbath (2016 film)

Wrong Turn 7: Bloodbath (2016 film) (edit | 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:NFF with no secondary sources confirming principal photography, or even that the film is planned (the only given source just asks "Do I think we’ll see Wrong Turn 7 in 2016?"). Possibly all just a hoax - "written and directed by Fardin101" seems odd, and the only coverage of the film I can find online are speculations and rumours and someone saying "you cant just put a load of films together and call it wrong turn 7 you idiot" in comments to a YouTube "trailer" from January this year. McGeddon (talk) 08:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article is really a complete hoax. Only one citation is used that just asks someone about the film release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nepali keto62 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's a likely hoax. For whatever reason, this film series attracts a lot of fake sequels from imaginative fans and vandals. There are no worthwhile hits on Google. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to go ahead and close this as a hoax - there are rumors of a 7th film, but nothing confirming anything. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Euryalus (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Gallagher (anthropologist)

Michael Gallagher (anthropologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails the GNG – no significant coverage in independent sources. There isn't really a claim to notability made in the article, it just seems to be the case of an anthropologist doing his job. Note: this was originally a PROD, but the article's creator objected. Based on that objection, it would be preferable if the AfD is not closed until the article's creator has had their say. IgnorantArmies (talk) 07:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The only thing that looks like a claim of notability here is co-authorship of a book Noonkanbah, whose land, whose law, but I didn't find the multiple independent reviews needed for WP:AUTHOR and in any case by itself that would still be a case of WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As nominator noted, no real claim to notability here - it's just a kind of abbreviated resume without anything to hang on as to why it should be in an encyclopedia. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a non-notable academic. At least, no claim to notability on the page, and my searches couldn't source notability, although he is real; sources for his work exist [18], just nothing that I saw supports notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there's still nothing at all for any actual convincing independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KaisaL (talk) 01:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline P. Kane

Jacqueline P. Kane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Puff piece for a non-notable corporate executive. In view of the author's other articles it looks like a paid piece to me. Author's SPI for (;;) (talk) 06:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per LaMona, but the sockpuppery also is a minus. Weak Keep (tentative) but also pinging Rosiestep and Megalibrarygirl for review of sources. This is a person with a 38-year corporate career, I think we are a bit past a puff piece, though a review for neutral tone would be well-advised and I would agree that a sockpuppet paid PR account would be grounds for deletion as a penalty for gaming the system regardless of the merits of the piece. I guess that if we have a paid piece, yes, it has to go, but if we don't, then let's review it on its merits. Montanabw^(talk) 21:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It would be important to me to ascertain if this is a paid piece. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rosiestep, Would this diff from one of the AfDs of the puppetmaster's other articles provide the evidence you seek? for (;;) (talk) 07:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. for (;;) (talk) 06:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. for (;;) (talk) 06:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. promotional and no real notability. This is an internal corporate bio, which would be appropriate for their own website but not for an encyclopedia . "Kane led the board through a multi-year succession planning processes which culminated in the seamless transition of the executive committee" (as head of Human Resources) No doubt several other executives have equal claims to the same thing-- and the reference used does not even mention her. Essentially everything else is a mere press release, or was written by the company. DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--promotional piece for a person who does not seem notable to me. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep She has a Bloomberg and a Crunchbase profile, which counts for something. On the other hand the article is a bit too promotional. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HappyValleyEditor - note that CrunchBase allows you to create your own profile and to edit profiles. I don't know if there is any kind of editorial control, but I've seen profiles for companies where the contributors to the profile are the company officers themselves. Right on the front page Crunchbase has a "contribute" button that says: "Build your profile and get in front of millions of users." I think we should declare Crunchbase a kind of IMDb for businesses. I can't find more about Bloomberg profiles because one of their (#*$(#() popups covers part of the screen. LaMona (talk) 05:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LaMona, thanks for the tip, I shall change to Weak Delete in that case. Re the pop-overs, hitting commmand-period very fast (on a Mac) as the page loads stops the popover script. Takes some practice. Works on the NYTIMEs, facilitating better wiki research access.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 05:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Very much a puff piece, with a considerable effort to make minor accomplishments, like getting a bachelor's degree, seem more important than they are. I got 404's from Bloomberg, Walker Research and her Uni; a blank screen from www.execrank.com/ (which one can easily read as "exe crank"). The rest is from her employer, or listing her as being on boards. Definitely not notable. LaMona (talk) 05:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per DGG and LaMona; and thank you to For (;;) for the diff. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Confirmed sock-puppetry, undisclosed paid editing a near-certainty (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Lincoln (telecommunications)). Delete without prejudice to re-creation by a non-conflicted editor if notability can be established (which at the moment seems unlikely, but that could change). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Will also salt the title, per excellent suggestion by 43.241.117.193 . -- RoySmith (talk) 11:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Lincoln (telecommunications)

John Lincoln (telecommunications) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Puff piece for a non-notable corporate executive. In view of the author's other articles it looks like a paid piece to me. Author's SPI for (;;) (talk) 06:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. for (;;) (talk) 07:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. for (;;) (talk) 07:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. for (;;) (talk) 07:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. clearly promotional paid bio by an now banned obvious paid sock editor, responsible for dozens of equally non notable articles on corporate executives. No real notability in any even--the accomplishments are of no interest outside the company . Notability is claimed as the author of a book, but it turns out the book is self-published through Author House. I hope whoever paid for this gets their money back, because adding such a book doesn't show basic competence. DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per DGG. If the speedy hadn't been denied, that would have worked too: it's promotional. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This article is notable as it has received significant coverage in multiple published as per GNG. Vandals and sockpuppets will just keep on re-creating the article if it's deleted. 43.241.117.193 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• In which case we'll salt it. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I want to make two points here:

1. How can you claim that if it is a paid editing?
2. If article is notable and meets all notability guidelines then it should not be deleted.43.241.117.193 (talk)

Note: This IP has contributed only on the AfD's of articles created by puppets of Caroline A. Murphy. for (;;) (talk) 12:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Puppetry reported. for (;;) (talk) 12:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, if it looks like paid editing, it's written like paid editing, and it smells like paid editing, chances are it's paid editing. And the notability (of the subject) is precisely what we're discussing here: it's not looking good right now. Drmies (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The article subject passes WP:GNG because of all the sources. Whoever created the article, whether a disclosed paid editor or not, does not keep the subject from being notable or from passing GNG. 43.241.117.171 (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This comment is made by the same IP as above (43.241.117.193) .43.241.117.171 (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The sources given are misleading and of poor quality. In several cases, instead of the actual article titles being included in the reference, a quote from the article mentioning Lincoln is used as a fake title to make the source seem more relevant than it is. The sources are passing mentions, press releases, not independent or consist of quotes of Lincoln doing his job. The GNG is not met.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an advertisement. Obviously promotional (sorry, Adam9007, but I think you're quite wrong), obvious sock-puppetry, and very probably undisclosed paid editing. This sort of editing needs to be mercilessly stamped out, and the best way of doing that is deletion. The image is presumably a copyvio (any Commons admins reading this?). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. An email was sent to me by the PR agency of the subject offering me money to get this article "passed". I have turned down their offer and made it clear to them how Wikipedia volunteers / editors function. Since I am now involved with this matter (unintentionally), I am refraining from a vote (I have communicated the same to the person who contacted me) and am bringing the issue to everyone's notice. Please decide accordingly. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment & my conclusion. Owing to what I stated above, I just want to make it clear that it is beyond reasonable doubt that this article is a clear case of "paid editing". I am not commenting on the merit, quality and notability of article and will leave it to other participating editors. Should anyone want to have a look at the email I exchanged with the PR agency, kindly let me know and I will forward you the entire chain. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• : Waw nice story. BTW, How much did you charge from John's competitor to make this comment. 43.241.117.128 (talk)
• Delete: Effectively a CV piece promoting a man who has had jobs and has self-published a book. The given references are a mix of routine announcements, pieces by the subject, and business blurb pieces. I am seeing nothing to suggest the subject has encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 12:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as does not seem notable enough for an article as he has had insufficient very senior positions and only had one book self-published.Can't understand why paid editing is allowed, and then there is attempted bribery. Atlantic306 (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Way too promotional, and subject fails WP:GNG, lacking in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Edwardx (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 02:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G. Nanchil Kumaran

G. Nanchil Kumaran (edit | 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 police officer Uncletomwood (talk) 06:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He was the head of police in Chennai, one of the 3 or so largest cities in India. Thus he headed the police in a major city, this seems enough to make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Commanded the police in a city of over 7 million people. In my opinion that easily shows sufficient notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but not quite entirely so confident as it would've been better this have better information, but it till seems enough to keep for now. SwisterTwister talk 02:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just heading the Police force for a city (with a tenure of hardly 1-2 years) without doing anything notable makes him notable enough? Uncletomwood (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Per all the above.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. G11, obviously promotional DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sumita Misra (IAS officer)

Sumita Misra (IAS officer) (edit | 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 Mid level Civil Servant. No notability as per GNG Uncletomwood (talk) 06:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. for (;;) (talk) 07:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. for (;;) (talk) 07:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and in line with the author's other puff pieces. Author's SPI for (;;) (talk) 07:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per per WP:OUTCOMES and the nominator's own request. Nominator withdrew after his question was answered to address his concern and there were no opinions for delete. The project is best served by the article being improved over time and with editorial attention. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rokto

Rokto (edit | 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 movie, that is not yet released. How can we consider it notable?? Mar11 (talk) 05:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

looking beyond the article:

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

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

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

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

• Keep per being a project confirmed as filming and its production having coverage to meet WP:GNG. IE: The Independent, Dhaka Tribune (1), Daily Sun, Daily Star, Dhaka Tribune (2) We may expand and further improves over time and through regular editing... so sorry nominator, but that's how an unreleased film might be considered as "notable" enough to merit an article. We look to WP:GNG, WP:WIP and WP:IMPERFECT and work ourselves to improve arguably notable topics. . Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• AfD withdrawn - @MichaelQSchmidt: I am convinced. Someone please archive this AfD. - Mar11 (talk) 18:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per Megalibrarygirl, the possibility of a WP:TOOSOON means this close is with no prejudice to recreation at a more appropriate time in the future. KaisaL (talk) 01:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alma Grace Barla

Alma Grace Barla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

NPOV BLP with a single source that doesn't meet standards, notes were given to creator but issues not addressed. Not much found outside of subject's website. JamesG5 (talk) 05:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable jouranlist and activitist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Her inclusion on the United Nations page shows that she is doing important work. No prejudice for recreation if there is more news about her in the future. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as still nothing at all convincing, I would've still explored A7 speedy. SwisterTwister talk 04:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brand spitting

Brand spitting (edit | 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 neologism not yet widely accepted or otherwise notable. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:TOOSOON Subject is not yet covered in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 22:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there's still not enough for convincing independent notability, only minimal information listed. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Euryalus (talk) 06:44, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mo Mohamed Salih

Mo Mohamed Salih (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:BLP of a municipal councillor, in a city not large enough to get its municipal councillors over WP:NPOL. This is based almost entirely on primary sources and local media coverage, with the only non-local piece of media coverage sitting on the unexceptional statement "he has spoken out against campaign racism" -- and the closest thing to an actual claim of "more notable than the norm" includability, that he's the first person of Sudanese descent ever to become an elected officeholder anywhere outside of Sudan, is both unsupported by its own sources and unverifiable anywhere else either. The article, further, is written very much more like a campaign brochure than like an encyclopedia article, featuring fluffy public relations bumf like "Salih also is known for challenge the status quo and bureaucracy" and "Salih a charismatic and effective leader in his rookie year was considered as one of the top politicians ranked at top among his colleagues". Neither the substance nor the sourcing on offer here suggests any reason why he belongs in an encyclopedia. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable local politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]