Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 25 May	27 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. obvious example for the proper use of BLP 1E. DGG ( talk ) 03:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Dach

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

Procedural Nomination / Nom Not a delete !Vote - An editor purporting to be the reputation management consultant for the Dach family [1] has requested this page be deleted as a violation of BLP1, stating that Dach is only known for one thing (his alleged involvement in the Summit of the Americas prostitution scandal). I am nominating it on the COI editor's behalf as a courtesy. The editor's rationale can be read in more detail here. LavaBaron (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BLP1E allows a person involved in a single event to be the subject of an article if "the event was significant." Given the breadth and international scope of global media coverage of the SOA prostitution scandal, I believe this event meets the BLP1E threshold for inclusion. Sources cited - which include the Washington Post and other reputable news outlets - deal with subject specifically and exclusively, and not merely in passing. LavaBaron (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—Hello, I am the Dach family consultant LavaBaron mentions, and I appreciate the willingness to make this nomination in spite of the disagreement. For what it's worth, I was asked not to simply have it deleted, but to determine whether it could be ameliorated. In my own reading of the news stories mentioning Mr. Dach and relevant Wikipedia policy, I came to the conclusion that deletion was the best outcome. I've explained the circumstances more fully on Talk:Jonathan Dach, but since BLP1E is the key issue, let's consider its three conditions:

We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:

If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.

If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.

If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley, Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented.

These are easily satisfied:

The reports are all in a single context: the news stories mentioning Mr. Dach, which are now approximately 18 months old, all relate to an allegation that the White House tried to interfere with a DHS investigator's claim against Mr. Dach, who had previously been cleared of wrongdoing by the White House, and the investigator soon after resigned amid questions about his credibility.
Mr. Dach is otherwise low-profile and clearly intends to remain so: the "biography" of Mr. Dach as it appears in Wikipedia contains scant details about his background and his career, and clearly gives "undue weight to the event"—in large part because WP:RSs have little else to say about him. Mr. Dach was a private figure before the Washington Post story that publicized his name, and even there he was not mentioned until the 11th paragraph. In the years since, he has remained out of the public eye.
His role was neither substantial nor well documented: the merits of the claims against him, including the Post's decision to name him, were called into question by media outlets as diverse as The Huffington Post and Fox News. In a report only weeks later, The New York Times chose not to name him, referring only to a "a volunteer member of a White House advance team". The shaky nature of the allegation and his passive role in the controversy suggested the Times felt it was improper to mention him by name. As far as I can tell, they never did.

That The New York Times chose to omit Mr. Dach's name from its coverage, combined with the dearth of WP:BIO coverage about him otherwise, as well as the satisfaction of all three conditions, strongly indicates this is a clear-cut BLP1E case, and I trust that editors will exercise their best judgment in this matter. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 00:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I respectfully question that your client, Mr Dach, "clearly intends to remain ... low-profile" when, just today, he had birthday wishes published to him from the editorial staff of Politico [2], a major beltway publication, and he's regularly photographed mugging for the camera in official, public-directed communiques from United States ambassadors [3]. This isn't exactly the M.O. of a shy hermit who just wishes the world would leave him alone. Mr Dach is a member of Society, which is fine, but isn't really compatible with the "simple hobbit from the Shire" frame. LavaBaron (talk) 06:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Politico's Playbook wishes "happy birthday" to literally thousands of Washingtonians every year, most non-notable; at least 18 people are mentioned in this list. (But how's that for timing, eh?) Second, the photo you mention is from December 2014, and it's the same one you uploaded to include in the existing article, in which he is furthest from the camera. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sur-Reply: I counted and they only wished Happy Birthday to 297 people last year, not "thousands." And, Dach is featured in multiple ambassadorial communiques. I appreciate the 30 year-old Dach's dad is buttering your bread, but we should not be intentionally deceptive. LavaBaron (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Mugging for the camera", LavaBaron? Really? I see no grimaces, attention drawing behavior or gang signs. Just an out of focus group photo of him with his boss and another American and several other people in the Congo. Do you really think that a person becomes a public figure if a political blog mentions them in a long list of birthday greetings? Give us a break. And did you really count all the greetings for a whole year? Why would you bother do that unless you are deeply invested in this hit piece? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First of all WWB_Too, I would like to thank you for handling your conflict of interest appropriately. You are correct in that this discussion revolves around WP:BLP1E. Additionally, I think that the first two points are satisfied - Dach is clearly only known for his involvement in the scandal and is otherwise low-profile. ~~Your third bullet point is what makes me think this is a keep. Dach's role appears to be both substantial and well-documented. Therefore, I think this is a Weak Keep on this basis.~~ The claims of undue weight are not correct in my opinion, but this is the wrong forum to discuss them. Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 01:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further reflection this is a textbook case of WP:BLP1E, and I'm not sure what I was thinking above. This should ideally Redirect to 6th_Summit_of_the_Americas#U.S._security_misconduct, but failing that, Delete .Tazerdadog (talk) 05:06, 27 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. I find it hard to imagine a more perfect example of WP:BLP1E . I also think the family consultant is stepping on his own feet here. If there was less of a paid editing suggestion this would be an obvious delete. GRuban (talk) 02:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. The lead of the article clearly states alleged involvement, so if his involvement in the event is only being alleged, then we don't need an article about a living individual filled with implications and allegations of wrongdoing.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 03:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fulfills our GNG. No clear BLP violation. (Everything is alleged unless convicted or admitted. But we don't use judicial standards to determine if something is Wiki-worthy. As no crime was committed by Dach, this will always be just an allegation.) That said, I appreciate Dach's dad wants to get rid of this article and don't view him negatively just for using his money and power to attempt to do so. BlueSalix (talk) 03:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueSalix: Sure we all resent paid and conflict of interest editing. But perhaps you should come up with a better reason to keep a gross attack page on an entirely non-notable living person. AusLondonder (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as flash-in-the-pan BLP1E, possibly retaining a redirect to the E. First, thanks to all who are handling the COI in a very correct (letter and spirit) way. I agree with their point that the person was associated with the event, and reported in reliable sources as such. But indeed it's also reliably sourced that the person was cleared? And that there is (apparently) nothing else reliably-sourced to say about the person? That's a great example of only "notability by association" or not independently notably exccept in relation to this event. If there were anything else notable or in-the-media about this person, I'd say keep; if the accusation against this person in particular or his personal response and individual followup/fallout were of reliable-source interest, I'd say keep. But "some guy is accused, and cleared" doesn't alone make that guy notable. DMacks (talk) 05:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was he cleared? LavaBaron (talk) 05:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was there a credible allegation? (Would that negate BLP1E even if there was?) WWB Too (Talk · COI) 06:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an undisputably RS source (the Washington Post) with a real-world, legal personality that could be subject to libel action for false or malicious reporting, conducted an investigative inquiry and made an unambiguous allegation, and has stood by that allegation without retraction or correction. That is the definition of a credible accusation. The WaPo's investigation was separately confirmed by Slate, another RS. This isn't exactly idle blog chatter. LavaBaron (talk) 06:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No one disputes the DHS investigator planned to include Mr. Dach in his report, but as the facts show (yet the existing article curiously does not) the matter ended when the investigator resigned following serious questions about his judgment and ethics. As I explained above, when the NY Times reported on the administration controversy, it opted to leave Mr. Dach's name out, without sacrificing any informational value. Wikipedia would be wise to heed its caution. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was the investigator in the Secret Service scandal, not the Dach probe. DHS has more than one investigator, the article to which you linked says nothing about Dach. LavaBaron (talk) 16:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only one investigator was named in the press coverage, and that is the individual whose resignation is the subject of the NYT article linked, which indeed says nothing about Mr. Dach because it only refers to a "volunteer member of a White House advance team". And there was no "Dach probe." WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, WWB_Too, you will be better off if you stop arguing. The case is obvious, textbook BLP1E, so you're going to win unless you change this into a referendum on paid editing. Which you could do. So, please, don't. --GRuban (talk) 19:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per the obvious BLP1E concerns; there are not nearly enough sources available to write an actual biography of Dach, as opposed to a COATRACK about an alleged scandal. Moreover, the "alleged scandal" has entirely disappeared from reliable sources; that suggests that his alleged involvement is not of lasting interest or notability beyond the event. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or GREATLY trim Either the article should be deleted, or the prostitution scandal should be reduced to a sentence or two so as not to be WP:UNDUE . The vast majority of the section is a WP:SUMMARY of the scandal, and not directly relevant to Dach's biography or even involvement in the scandal. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP1E here too. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The astonishing thing about this deletion debate regarding this foul BLP violation of an article is that some experienced editors are unable to see that it is a textbook example of BLP1E. Please remember that our BLP policy applies to every single living person ranging from mass murderers to winners of the Nobel Peace Prize. There is no exception that allows us to name, blame and shame a young man just because he has wealthy, society-connected parents and we do not build biographies around uncorroborated and forcefully denied allegations that maybe someone might possibly have had a legally registered overnight guest in their hotel room one night. Gossip, innuendo and Buzzfeed clickbait are utterly inappropriate here on Wikipedia, and this article has countless problems which do not need to be itemized in detail since it needs to be deleted ASAP as a BLP1E and a violation of a core content policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:51, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP1E & per Cullen328. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:51, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. I nearly recommended speedy deletion here. If this isn't a WP:BLP1E violation then I'm not sure why BLP1E even exists. Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin) ^{(My talkpage)} 21:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E and GRuban and Cullen's comments above. Cbl62 (talk) 01:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E/BLPCRIME — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I find the sources that support the article to be emblematic of a very sad kind journalism. This is BLP1E.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Almost a candidate for speedy per WP:ATTACK. The suggestion by LavaBaron that this page should be kept because Dach received less than a sentence of a birthday wish amongst a long list of others from a website that basically serves as a Washington DC staff newsletter is preposterous and a serious error of judgement. I have never seen a more textbook case of WP:BLP1E. The only reason people want to keep this gossip is that we resent paid and conflict of interest editing. However, this article is the worst kind of gutter yellow journalism (and pathetic moralising "Oh my dear God, no sex please, we're Americans") that any family would wish to protect themselves from. AusLondonder (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E. His name appears as a one-sentence afterthought in the last line of 6th Summit of the Americas#U.S. security misconduct. There is no doubt that the event was significant, but his role in it does not appear to be all that significant. If the details of that event were trimmed or removed then this article is barely a stub on a non-notable person. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as there's nothing at all to suggest solid notability, it seems he's only an advisor for the office, not an actual government position. SwisterTwister talk 07:31, 2 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 speedy delete. G5 —SpacemanSpiff 14:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anuja Kapur

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

Article is very well referenced, but they are all from sources that are not reliable for Wikipedia. Some appear to be blogs, some look like press releases, and the rest are brief mentions. A Google search found the Times of India and The New Indian Express, but both of these are only brief mentions and I would not consider them significant enough to establish WP:GNG. CNMall41 (talk) 23:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep. I believe the article passes the "General Notability guidelines" found on WP:GNG. Anuja Kapur is very famous in India in her area of endeavour. She has worn awards. I just added one more references from IDVA magazine. I also think that these references amongst others are good enough to show notability. 1. The National Leader newspaper

2. India News Calling

3. Times of India

4. India Blooms

5. News New

6. International News and Views

7. Punjab Outlook

These are secondary news-related sources. I believe other editors can take a look and offer their comments.Butterfly Angelo (talk) 04:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir/Ma'am,

I believe all the information listed on Anuja Kapur's wikipedia page says it all. She is a lady of honour and respect. What she has achieved in life is of her hard work, knowledge and strength that she carries throughout her. I am a great fan of her as I have seen her on news channels and read her major articles on newspapers and magazines. I believe that a lady like her is a standing example to our mother, sister, daughter that girls are no less than boys and there is no gender or age to achieve what she has achieved. I have liked her recent statement that she said "The sky has no limit and thus, I have no limit, I will keep working hard till my last breath. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnantKapur (talk • contribs) 17:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article was created by an undisclosed paid editor even after being blocked. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Boskit190. Also, the subject fails WP:GNG. Out of the links provided in the first comment, only one is reliable source. Delete as WP:NOTPROMO --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:51, 30 May 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. Nakon 04:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Susannah Streeter

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

My searches found links at News and browsers but nothing noticeably better at all and this is only shows she's worked at several news groups, but nothing for a convincing article of her own. SwisterTwister talk 23:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found interview articles where she talks about herself and website bios. No significant coverage where other people wrote about her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gab4gab (talk • contribs)
Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:ANYBIO. She appears to be a reporter no one has reported about. Jbh ^Talk 13:32, 2 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. Sandstein 06:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

R1Soft

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

Searches have found nothing convincingly better at all including only mentions (including these being press releases quite noticeably so) at News, nothing at all here for convincing notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NORG. Generally we do not have articles on divisions of other companies unless there is more coverage than can be dealt with in the article on the parent company. In this case the parent company Continuum Managed Services has no article and a brief search shows it unlikely to rate one. Jbh ^Talk 13:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only passing mentions in sources. Tom29739 ^[talk] 19:44, 2 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. Nakon 04:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Grisanti

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

Nothing at all actually convincing for any applicable notability and my searches have found only mentions at News so far, I would've PROD too since this is noticeably questionable. SwisterTwister talk 23:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:CREATIVE for a journalist. LibStar (talk) 23:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically the sources are links to his employer explaining why he is employed as a commentator. Lots of people comment on finances in the news, doing so does not automatically make one notable, and sources from the employer promoting his work for doing such are not enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:ANYBIO. His emplyment bio does nothing to demonstrate notability. Jbh ^Talk 13:25, 2 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. Consensus has always been clear that mere candidate in a primary election for a position such as governor is not notable. DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John G. Brunner

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

It is clear that this page does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia's Notability Requirements for a Politician. Specifically, Wiki states "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.'"^[1] Mr. Brunner is currently an unelected candidate running in the Republican primary for the 2016 Missouri Governor's Race. He is not currently a part of the general election for the position. But more importantly, the majority of his coverage is based upon his unsuccessful run for the Senatorial nomination in Missouri in 2012.^[2] This coverage is brief and it is not significant. Moreover, it would seem to fall under Wikipedia's Notability Requirements that "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.""^[3] As it stands, Brunner does not have enough notability as a politician to warrant a stand-alone page.

In addition, Brunner has already been removed from the site once before as a non-notable CEO.^[4] His past history as a CEO was considered by the community as insufficient in meeting Wikipedia's Notability requirements and therefore that history cannot be used to establish his current notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rozmoff (talk • contribs) 22:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Notability (People)". Wikipedia.
^ Mascaro, Lisa. "More Republicans urge Todd Akin's departure despite slim poll lead". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 26 May 2016.
^ "Notability (People)". Wikipedia.
^ Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Brunner_(CEO). {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Shelbystripes (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While US state gubernatorial elections are covered widely enough that the actual candidate on the general election ballot has a chance of satisfying WP:GNG regardless of whether they win or lose on election day, as of today Brunner is not the general election candidate but is merely one of four declared candidates in the Republican Party primary contest. That, however, is not a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia — and nothing else here gives him enough preexisting notability to pass another inclusion rule. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the fall if he wins the primary and the coverage of him improves accordingly. Bearcat (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As failing WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. In-depth coverage lacking. AusLondonder (talk) 22:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unelected politician. While I personally don't care much for the standard and favor greater inclusion of legitimate candidates for high office, consensus on AfD on this matter is clear and I respect that. Carrite (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A Great deal of this material could be legitimately merged to Missouri gubernatorial election, 2016. Carrite (talk) 15:45, 2 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. Nakon 04:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soyuz-2 (disambiguation)

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

Now that Soyuz-2 (rocket) has been moved to Soyuz-2 as primary topic, we can delete this disambig page per WP:2DABS. — JFG ^talk 21:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see two different articles, nothing moved, so the disambiguation is valid. DeVerm (talk) 01:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete changed !vote after explanation and my comments below. Close surprised me as I was expecting more votes/re-listing so happy to get a 2nd chance DeVerm (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - the trick is there are two different articles, Soyuz-2 (the 1968 mission) and Soyuz 2 (the rocket). Having such close titles is probably a poor choice, but that is not a matter for AfD. I respectfully suggest that JFG withdraws their nomination, if (as I assume) they mistakenly thought the articles had been merged. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some misunderstanding here: indeed there are two articles and they refer to vastly different subjects: a 1968 test flight and a current rocket family; they were never considered for merging. However the dab page has only two entries and one of them (the rocket) is a primary topic, so according to the WP:TWODABS guidelines it is sufficient to have hatnotes in each article pointing to the other. Quote: If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article. (This means that readers looking for the second topic are spared the extra navigational step of going through the disambiguation page.) Now the existence of the dab page doesn't disturb me per se, it just happens to be useless, as the hatnotes are already in place. @DeVerm: @Tigraan: I hope this answers your concerns. — JFG ^talk 14:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough and sorry for the misunderstanding.

I do agree that, as it stands now, the DAB page is useless, and I do think the rocket is primary topic. But the titles are not really well-organized.

I suggest to move the page about 1968 to Soyuz 2 (1968 mission) or another such title and redirect Soyuz 2 → Soyuz-2. Leave Soyuz-2 in place, no DAB but hatnotes both ways. I do not know if there is a relevant MOS entry but it seems that such close titles are likely to cause confusion even if the mission has a space and the rocket a dash in all sources.

In the unlikely event consensus emerges that a DAB page is needed, put it at Soyuz-2 or Soyuz 2 and redirect the other, and move both pages elsewhere (Soyuz 2 (space mission) and Soyuz 2 (rocket)?), as that is still a superior option to the current state of things (a DAB that none will ever reach).

Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I must be old because for me the 1968 mission would be the primary article, but I have no objection to it being the other way around. In fact, I completely agree with the construction as described by Tigraan. DeVerm (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Striking the !vote, since it is really a delete now. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 22:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted? Seriously?... I hope it was a "no quota" thing but I suspect it is more of a "nomination + two keep = NC yet" thing. Oh well, I suppose that is why one should always remember to strike one's vote when good discussion happened. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was re-listed upon request st170e^talk 17:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I saw the request and then checked back to realize you actually closed the AfD as a keep at first. Hmm, seriously? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I closed AfD, I was under the impression that the consensus was to keep. If you're going to change your mind then strike your vote so it doesn't make things confusing. st170e^talk 19:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the hatnotes do it all. PamD 14:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No big deal, but I would say the hatnote on Soyuz-2 should be sufficient.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing here, nothing that can't be mentioned individually. SwisterTwister talk 04:31, 3 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 00:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yuke Songpaisan

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

Quick Google search, and I cannot find many non-primary sources, but that may be because I don't speak Thai. In veritas (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator-by using his Thai name I found some sources that make him notable, but someone who speaks Thai should translate his article from the Thai Wikipedia to the English Wikipedia. In veritas (talk) 21:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:32, 27 May 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. Nakon 04:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Downward

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

I don't believe that the book currently meets the notability requirements for books. Pichpich (talk) 20:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absolutely fails WP:NBOOK, no news sources or articles found. - SanAnMan (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wish the author well, but there just isn't any coverage for the book in independent and reliable sources that establish notability. To be fair, it's really difficult for indie and self-published books to gain coverage, but it's still required. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage found. Gab4gab (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kara (South Korean band). (non-admin closure) SST flyer 05:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Sung-hee

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

Singer does not have independent notability per WP:MUSBIO. None of the sources used in the article are reliable. Random86 (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing actually convincing of her own notability article apart from the group, nothing convincing from the information given. SwisterTwister talk 21:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It appears that all members of Kara (South Korean band) have stand-alone articles. This one is reasonably extensive and sourced, she seems to have three solo albums. Adequate indicia of notability plus a redirect to Kara (South Korean band) would put WP:UNDUE weight on one performer. If deletion is going to happen, then the other six or seven biographies of the group also probably should be AfD'd and perhaps List of members of Kara (South Korean band) could be created. But frankly, I think this one is a keep, as are all the others. I don't follow k-pop, but the coverage seems adequate to me. Montanabw^(talk) 06:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Montanabw Adequate indicia of notability plus a redirect to Kara (South Korean band) would put WP:UNDUE weight on one performer—I don't understand this part? 2NE1 is just as famous as Kara, but Minzy's article was deleted because she is not independatly notable. Kim Sung-hee didn't had article until earlier this year. She had some OST songs, but their notability hasn't been established. Also, as I said before, none of the article's sources are reliable. It also wouldn't make sense to delete the notable members of Kara because one is less notable. Random86 (talk) 07:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is equally ridiculous to delete one member and leave all the others. Your logic fails. Seriously, would you delete Mick Fleetwood because he's not done as much work outside of the band as other members of Fleetwood Mac? Montanabw^(talk) 08:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then why does WP:MUSBIO say "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band"? Plenty of non-notable band members have been deleted before this. Random86 (talk) 09:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I fail to see any real distinction between this person and the other past and present members of Kara. I say they all stay or they all go into a unified list. Instead of wasting bandwidth on this, why not create List of members of Kara. All of this deletionist stuff on these borderline cases is really quite unnecessary. No need to throw away people's work when it can be salvaged in some fashion. Montanabw ^(talk) 01:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, Nicole Jung for example has a notable solo career in both South Korea and Japan, with charted albums/singles. Some of the other members have acting careers. I really don't understand this "all stay or all go" idea. There are many K-pop idol groups with some notable members and some non-notable members. Even if a List of members of Kara article is created, the notable members will still have their own articles. Random86 (talk) 04:33, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I frankly think that this article should be kept. It seems POINT-y to nominate just one when ALL the others in the group have separate articles. There is adequate indicia of notability. Montanabw ^(talk) 08:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None sources referenced in the article are reliable. Google search gets more of the same. Gab4gab (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is not unusual for one member of a group to not be individually notable when others are (and it's possible that others need to be nominated for AfD as well). This particular one has done nothing noteworthy outside the group and is thus a good candidate for deletion. Note that all the sourcing is from either fan sites (http://www.karaholic.com/forums/) or from allkpop, a fan/company portal, IMO. This person, Montanabw, is no Mick Fleetwood! Drmies (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I previously suggested a list be created of all members, it is possible that all need to be gone, but in that case, a List is appropriate, as the article would be bloated with merged content. Frankly, I wish that AfD would be a bit more creative in that respect, much work could be salvaged if it were made into list articles. Montanabw ^(talk) 04:08, 2 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities spanning more than one continent

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

Lacks notability WP:N Szqecs (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Only one such city exists in the world and that fact can easily be included in the Istanbul article. Safiel (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This edit recently removed most of the material of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails MOS:LISTS and WP:NOTDIR. - SanAnMan (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a pretty pointless list if there can only be one entry. I don't see how this could ever satisfy WP:LISTN. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This can't cover anything more than what's already said at Istanbul.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The portion of the article that has already been removed was tangential and pointless. The remaining material is nothing more than a point of trivia best covered elsewhere. Krychek (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pure trivia. Carrite (talk) 15:46, 2 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aero Gorda

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

Tiny, non notable airline. Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Safiel (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dammit, I meant to PROD this, not AfD this, hit the wrong Twinkle button. Oh well. Safiel (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH; only finding passing mentions in sources, such as this. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Yup. An airline run by two people in a small island? Nowhere near relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KelseyWill (talk • contribs) 00:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. The article itself even states "No website is known to exist"... which is never a good sign for proving notability. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 00:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Buttons0603 (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pretty obvious, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH without any further references, website, or information known about a small airliner. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 21:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tiny airline, fails GNG. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 10:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as there's nothing at all and I would've considered speedy or PROD instead. Quite unacceptable. SwisterTwister talk 04:29, 3 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 procedural keep. Most of these articles have been renominated for deletion using separate nominations. This can still be performed for any articles here that may have not been renominated. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Games

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

Not nominating the page itself, but I'm nominating all of these, due to a big mess at AfD. The nomination rationales were all identical, it was "Empty article with no Info that is not visible on the main page. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lanka at the 1998 Asian Games

Sri Lanka at the 1974 Asian Games

Sri Lanka at the 2006 Asian Games

Sri Lanka at the 2002 Asian Games

Singapore at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

Syria at the 2009 Asian Youth Games

Syria at the 2007 Asian Indoor Games

Syria at the 1994 Asian Games

Syria at the 1990 Asian Games

Syria at the 1982 Asian Games

Syria at the 1978 Asian Games

Syria at the 2014 Asian Games

Tajikistan at the 2006 Asian Games

Tajikistan at the 2002 Asian Games

Turkmenistan at the 1998 Asian Games

Turkmenistan at the 2010 Asian Games

Turkmenistan at the 2002 Asian Games

Turkmenistan at the 2006 Asian Games

United Arab Emirates at the 2010 Asian Beach Games

United Arab Emirates at the 2008 Asian Beach Games

United Arab Emirates at the 2006 Asian Games

United Arab Emirates at the 2002 Asian Games

Uzbekistan at the 2002 Asian Games

Uzbekistan at the 1998 Asian Games

Vietnam at the 1982 Asian Games

Vietnam at the 2006 Asian Games

Vietnam at the 1998 Asian Games

Yemen at the 2002 Asian Games

Bahrain at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

Bangladesh at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

Bhutan at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

Brunei at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

Cambodia at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

China at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

Chinese Taipei at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

Hong Kong at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

Iraq at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

Japan at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

Jordan at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

Kazakhstan at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

Kuwait at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

Kyrgyzstan at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

Laos at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

Lebanon at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

Afghanistan at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

Macau at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

Maldives at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

Mongolia at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

Myanmar at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

Nepal at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

North Korea at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

Pakistan at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

Palestine at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

Saudi Arabia at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

Syria at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

Tajikistan at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

Thailand at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

Timor-Leste at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkmenistan at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

United Arab Emirates at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

Uzbekistan at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

Yemen at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

Oman at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

Malaysia at the 2005 Asian Indoor Games

Macau at the 2005 Asian Indoor Games

Thailand at the 2005 Asian Indoor Games

China at the 2005 Asian Indoor Games

Qatar at the 2005 Asian Indoor Games

Philippines at the 2005 Asian Indoor Games

India at the 2005 Asian Indoor Games

Hong Kong at the 2005 Asian Indoor Games

Oman at the 2005 Asian Indoor Games

Oman at the 2014 Asian Games

Yemen at the 2014 Asian Games

Vietnam at the 2014 Asian Games

Timor-Leste at the 2014 Asian Games

Macau at the 2014 Asian Games

Maldives at the 2014 Asian Games

Palestine at the 2014 Asian Games

Tajikistan at the 2014 Asian Games

Laos at the 2014 Asian Games

Laos at the 2009 Asian Indoor Games

Kyrgyzstan at the 2009 Asian Indoor Games

Kuwait at the 2009 Asian Indoor Games

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kazakhstan at the 2009 Asian Indoor Games

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan at the 2009 Asian Indoor Games

Indonesia at the 2009 Asian Indoor Games

Hong Kong at the 2009 Asian Indoor Games

Chinese Taipei at the 2009 Asian Indoor Games

Cambodia at the 2009 Asian Indoor Games

Bhutan at the 2009 Asian Indoor Games

Qatar at the 2009 Asian Indoor Games

Oman at the 2009 Asian Indoor Games

Nepal at the 2009 Asian Indoor Games

Mongolia at the 2009 Asian Indoor Games

Maldives at the 2009 Asian Indoor Games

Malaysia at the 2009 Asian Indoor Games

Macau at the 2009 Asian Indoor Games

Uzbekistan at the 2009 Asian Indoor Games

United Arab Emirates at the 2009 Asian Indoor Games

Turkmenistan at the 2009 Asian Indoor Games

Thailand at the 2009 Asian Indoor Games

Tajikistan at the 2009 Asian Indoor Games

Sri Lanka at the 2009 Asian Indoor Games ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, part procedural, part actually believing some of these articles are worth keeping. Simply too many to evaluate properly (suggesting a procedural close), but from the few I've looked through and Googled, it seems proper articles could be made. The fact that they currently aren't great articles doesn't mean that they're delete-worthy articles. ~ Rob^Talk 02:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per procedure, Asian Games is notable. The other articles listed have their own AfDs and I think it is better to evaluate each on its own merit. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all the Asian Games articles. Suggest an RfC to determine a consensus on the notability of the Indoor Games and Youth Games having their own entries for each nation. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Carnival game. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 14:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cover the spot

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

Article with minimal content that could be merged into an article on general boardwalk amusement games. Not much content; rules of the game are given but no elaboration is present. Article is not encyclopedic and lacks references. Dkendr (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Carnival game as suggested by nom. ~Kvng (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Carnival game, which presently only has a link to the article in its See also section. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG; source searches are only providing passing mentions (e.g. [4], [5]). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:34, 27 May 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. Nakon 04:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pathdrawn

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

I couldn't identify any in-depth coverage by independent reliable sources; subject doesn't appear to meet the notability guideline. Paul_012 (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searching I found nothing to support keep. Two of the article references are dead, so they're no help. Gab4gab (talk) 14:25, 28 May 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. Nakon 04:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deb Sofield

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

This article is about a person that lacks the significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. She has some local awards and some coverage in community press but that is insufficient for inclusion as an article. Whpq (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:BIO. predominantly local awards and coverage. Most speakers on WP have international coverage. LibStar (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not sufficient. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Comment from user Recently I added 2 references to this person's article. The references cite her international work. Additionally, she is more noted as a speaking coach than she is a speaker. Her involvement as a visiting lecturer at Harvard's Kennedy School of Govt., her work as a lecturer and as a past president of the Women's Campaign School at Yale are important and note-worthy. While I've not added it to the article, Ms. Sofield is referenced in SC Governor Nikki Hayley's book as having coached the governor in her election campaign. She was presented the < ref>http://leadershipsc.com/leadership-south-carolina-to-honor-three.php</ref> Alumnus of the Year Award from Leadership South Carolina along with Hayne Hipp and Sen. Lindsey Graham who were presented with awards on the same evening.

I appreciate the editing and the scrutiny--it's all part of the process. Obviously, I am a novice here. I have been using this article/entry to learn. I do, however,contend that Deb Sofield is worthy of an entry in Wikipedia and should not be deleted. YearginD (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. even with theadded material there is no substantial notability. DGG ( talk ) 03:06, 3 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 redirect to Gauteng. All primary schools are usually redirected if they're not notable so am redirecting to Gauteng (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 14:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Yard Preparatory School

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

This is a primary school without any coverage in secondary sources. Not clear why it is notable. Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, schools before high school are not normally kept. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Redirect"". also per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES...which is the usual solution unless for some reason the article is particularly toxic. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:41, 27 May 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. Nakon 04:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ntzieanhortara ridge pass

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

None of the three synonymous names listed in the article are verifiable via Google Books searches. This looks like a hoax? It was deprodded on procedural grounds, but I still don't see what could possibly save this. Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - I should not have deprodded this. Sorry. ~Kvng (talk) 03:45, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This does not look like a hoax to me, but the article's problems are probably too great to justify keeping it. The article seems to be a direct translation of its Greek equivalent, and while "Ntzieanhortara" seems to be exactly how it should be transliterated from Greek, the name itself is fairly obviously a very awkward transcription into Greek of a non-Greek name. To add to the difficulties, both of the non-Greek sources mentioned are identifiably from the early 19th century, and I suspect that all the Greek sources are originally at least 100 years old, even where more modern reprints have been used - and most of Epirus remained under Ottoman rule until 1913. Because of this, there is a small chance that this pass is today in Albania rather than Greece - but if it is in Greece, its name has almost certainly been changed to something less obviously non-Greek. If, however, someone can chase down the sources given in the article (apart from the lack of inline citations, it is actually reasonably sourced) within the AfD period, it might be possible to identify the place's modern name and merge some of the material into a suitable article. PWilkinson (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt any sort of orogeny events happened in Pindus since the 1980s, which is the listed date on the newest referenced print source, that would have affected the locations or naming of mountain passes there, so I find it rather dubious that someone would write an article about one without using a name recognized by gazetteers that are searchable on the Internet. Something's very much off here. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:20, 3 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. Nakon 04:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phutthamonthon Sai 4 MRT Station

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

At this point the existence of this station is pure speculation and as such the article fails WP:CRYSTAL. The project extension, of which this station would be part of, has not yet been approved, and even if had been, wouldn't have any bearing on the notability of this individual station, which hasn't been covered by any independent sources. Paul_012 (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dekete fails all WP:GNG guidelines. - SanAnMan (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails both GNG and CRYSTAL. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 20:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's nothing at all here to assume actual independent notability yet. SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 3 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 speedy deleted G11 by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 13:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Nigerian Students in Diaspora

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

Fails WP:N, no independent third-party sources. Declined PROD. shoy (reactions) 17:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N and WP:GNG, PROD was also deleted with no rational explanation. Seems to be written from first-person perspective as well. - SanAnMan (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:10, 26 May 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. Nakon 04:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Taplin

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

Autobiography of a business person. The few available sources are mostly brief profile listings and trivial mentions in a couple of business publications. Fails WP:BASIC. - Mr X 15:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: vanity article with no reliable, independent references. Does not meet WP:GNG. ubiquity (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:AUTOBIO without WP:RS that show notability.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 16:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No indication of notability in cited sources; possible COI. Plazak (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete article creator name says it all. Self promotional. LibStar (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability. The only news mentions for him are press releases. CerealKillerYum (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Prentice

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

Advertorially-toned WP:BLP of the chair and president of an organization. This is not a claim of notability that automatically entitles a person to an article just because he exists; it counts as notability if he can be sourced over WP:GNG for it, but does not confer a "because he exists" freebie if the sourcing is as bad as it is here: of the seven references, five are primary sources that cannot support notability at all (and even two of those are just unnecessary reduplications of one of the other three), one is a Q&A-style interview with him (a type of sourcing that can support additional facts after GNG has been met by stronger sources, but cannot be GNG in and of itself as it represents the subject talking about himself), and the last simply namechecks his existence a single time in an article that isn't substantively about him. In addition, this was created by a user who has the acronym of the organization directly in his own username, so there's a conflict of interest. We are not a free public relations platform on which anybody is entitled to an article -- nothing here exempts him from having to meet GNG on the sourcing. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Canadian Baseball Hall of Fame, assuming it is true that he founded it. Rlendog (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My searches do not turn up significant coverage (i.e., more than passing references) of Prentice in multiple, reliable, and independent sources. The OSHOF is not an independent source since Prentice has been the organization's president for 20 years. Aside from the failure to satisfy GNG, the article simply reaks of POV; it is a pure vanity piece. I would suggest that the Bruce Prentice Legacy Award also be deleted. Cbl62 (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also Sandy Hawley Community Service Award, Brian Williams Media Award and Ferguson Jenkins Heritage Award (other recently-created OSHOF articles with no independent sourcing). Cbl62 (talk) 23:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)][reply]

Delete and Redirect since he's still questionable for a separate article at best, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 3 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 Speedy delete G11 by Patar knight. (non-admin closure) NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AMBER health

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

While this response system likely is helpful for a lot of people, I don't see particular evidence of it being notable. The problematic, advertising-like nature of the current article's tone is also worrying. All that we seem to have that passes the sourcing bar is one single article from Forbes.com, which is interesting, but that's not enough to build an adequate page on. More searching generates links to places with publicity type material and downloading details that doesn't meet citation guidelines. I also need to note that, confusingly, a number of institutions in multiple countries, such as the United States, also go by names including the term "Amber Health". CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searching "AMBER health India," the only sources I found were the Forbes article and some press releases. The sourcing is insufficient, and thus I believe it probably does not meet WP:GNG. Might there be material in Hindi? GAB^gab 14:48, 26 May 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. clear consensus to fix, not delete DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leema Dhar

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

I have no opinion on this article, but I am correcting a failed attempt at nominating for deletion made by Sabishaikhauthor, to help Sabishaikhauthor. Sabishaikhauthor's reason for deletion was "The articles and links are poor and not standard. Except The Telegraph's articles other articles are not as per wikipedia standard guidelines." The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notable sources. Almost all sources are authored by the subject herself. Coderzombie (talk) 12:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this page underwent some seriously heavy edit warring in the last twelve hours. Honestly I'm surprised neither party was blocked for editing. I've reverted to the last good configuration (i.e. when it was accepted). You should find that the primary/promotional references have been removed. Coderzombie, does that change your opinion at all? Primefac (talk) 17:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I was the one that accepted it at AFC, I'll throw in my obligatory keep !vote (as it should be fairly obvious that's how I feel). Primefac (talk) 04:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per AUTHOR, a creative professional's biography may be kept if "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Leema has created (authored) her well known book and the same has been the subject of multiple reviews like CNN's iReport featuring Leema Dhar's interview with Book Review Forum, Global Times half pager on Leema, Telegraph's small but significant piece on Leema, Merinews review of Leema's book, this significantly long piece on Leema done by Amar Ujala which is amongst the top five Hindi regional language newspapers in India, this piece on Leema in Jagran, the highest read daily in India. And none of these is authored by Leema. This biography needs to be developed properly with these references rather than be deleted. Xender Lourdes (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:GNG. The vast majority of sources in the article are reliable and most provide reasonably comprehensive coverage of the subject. I'm not sure I would say that the coverage of the subject is extensive, but I feel there is definitely enough here to meet notability guidelines. I am of the opinion that the notability guidelines are about ensuring enough content for a useful article can be found in reliable sources. We have enough content sources from reliable sources here for an article that describes the subject, thus my argument for meeting WP:GNG. Chrisw80 (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't really understand the nominators rationale ("The articles and links are poor and not standard. Except The Telegraph's articles other articles are not as per wikipedia standard guidelines") adequate, either. Content and sourcing issues actually aren't adequate grounds for deletion unless it must be completely rewritten in order to comply with Wikipedia guidelines, which clearly isn't the case here - it was adequate enough for an experienced editor to deem it suitable for mainspace. Essentially, not sure WP:BEFORE took place before nomination. Chrisw80 (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why not work on the article to correct the pointed reference issues than trying to AfD it in the first place ? Did we go through WP:BEFORE ? I am missing out on that . It will rather be prudent to close this deletion request at this point as the AfD nomination doesn't look valid. Devopam (talk) 09:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough sources for the author's notability as mentioned by Xender Lourdes and all are justified by our senior editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by संकल्पप्रभा (talk • contribs) 07:13, 29 May 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. Nakon 04:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rain Elwood

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

Poorly sourced and highly advertorial article about an actress and model with no strong claim to passing WP:NACTOR or WP:NMODEL. The strongest claim here, that she was the face of a luxury perfume brand, is supported by sources which verify the existence of said perfume brand but completely fail to contain any mention whatsoever of her being its face -- and her acting career consists entirely of commercials, music videos and minor character roles in film or television, which is not an NACTOR pass. And the sourcing here is heavily dependent on primary sources and press releases -- the only reliable sources in the bunch are the modelling articles that fail to name her. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which anybody is entitled to have an article just because they exist -- nothing here is a compelling pass of any notability criterion, and the sourcing isn't satisfying WP:GNG. In addition, this was created by an editor who's been blocked for WP:COI sockpuppetry around Ankit Love, who's named in this article as a direct colleague of Elwood's -- which means the creator has a COI with regard to her as well. Delete with fire. Bearcat (talk) 07:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: based upon primarily roles in commercials, not a lot to meet NACTOR. Montanabw ^(talk) 06:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as quite easy to see there's nothing convincing for independent notability, sources are not convincing at all and are expected from these subjects, clearly nothing yet for an acceptable article overall. SwisterTwister talk 18:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is a very minor actress who doesn't meet WP:NACTOR as per the original nomination. There's a serious lack of independent, reliable sources too with most of the references in the article only mentioning her in passing. N4 (talk) 20:37, 2 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 Withdrawn. Codename Lisa (talk) 17:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notepad (disambiguation)

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

Delete as a bad disambiguation page:

Entries of Notepad++, Notepad+ and Notepad2 are forbidden per WP:PTM.
Notepad software is forbidden by WP:DABREDIR, because "notepad software" does not appear in text editor article. (I have nominated it for deletion.)

What is left consists of two entries (notepad and Microsoft Notepad) which, per WP:2DAB are not enough for a disambiguation page. Codename Lisa (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there's enough useful WP:PTM See also entries for a useful dab, and the obvious synonyms / ambiguity around names editors, tablets, laptops, notebooks, netbooks, Thinkpads so useful for navigation via the See alsos. Marked as twodabs in the mean time to attract more entries. Widefox; talk 12:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whether Text editor currently mentions the name "notepad" or not, it should, as it's a relatively common term for this type of program.[6][7]. I also wonder if the alternative Notepads like Notepad+ should really be removed. I think most would still refer to them as just "Notepad".--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added sourced information on text editors being referred to as "notepad" software to text editor.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Widefox. --Gimubrc (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notepad+, Notepad++, and Notepad2 are all commonly shortened to "Notepad" (there is significant risk of confusion or reference to them by that name), and that shortening isn't limited to a certain area or group, so they aren't in conflict with the partial title matches guideline. Text editor can also probably be listed in some way as Cuchullain states.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I can see why the nominator felt that this might not fall within the letter of the guidelines (although I think on close examination it does), but it certainly falls within the spirit of it - we have similar terms which may confuse readers and there is no benefit to readers of deletion. Boleyn (talk) 19:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 100%. Last time I checked, we don't have good guidance in MOSDAB for useful dictionary based entries in dabs. For example synonyms not listed in the article, but may be in wiktionary. I add wikt to all dabs now, and it may be as simple as adding all useful entries from wikt in the dab. I suppose the twodabs template covers this somewhat. Widefox; talk 10:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I for one don't see why anyone would refer to Notepad++ as just Notepad - if the extra characters were just run-of-the-mill punctuation, maybe that would be ambiguous, but it's two pluses, there's no way one could just omit them as irrelevant for the search term. Every keyboard has a one or two key combinations to get a plus, and it's reasonable to expect people would type it in. People who are searching for just "notepad" are looking either for the paper variant or for the trivial MS program. Stuffing all the other similarly named programs into this part of the navigation process is indeed a WP:PTM violation. It's also a slippery slope to linking every Michael from Mike (disambiguation), and whatnot, and should be avoided. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:44, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's almost as likely that people are looking for general "notepad" text editors without regard to whether it's the Microsoft version or not. Though I note that notepad software is up for deletion, for some reason.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall ever seeing anyone refer to "a notepad app" in the real world. Most people who don't care for it (but use Windows) only know about MS Notepad, and those who care seem to call them with the generic term "editor" or "text editor". There's a lot of this terminology in the field, what with Notepad, Editpad, Evernote, even iPad, and probably a lot of other variants, but I don't see that Notepad has become generic, not on the level of text editors or note-taking apps. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notepad is generic term for whatever plain text editor happens to be available. older ≠ wiser 12:05, 29 May 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 and redirect to University of Auckland Faculty of Arts. Full content was: "The School of Theology at the University of Auckland is an ecumenical provider of theological education in the Faculty of Arts." Sandstein 06:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

University of Auckland School of Theology

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

No evidence of notability. Almost no sourceable information Ajf773 (talk) 06:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Whatever notability that they have, which seems to be little at best, is in the context of the overall college complex as as whole. I can see creating a redirect in the future, maybe, but otherwise I'm just supporting deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect Already mentioned at University of Auckland Faculty of Arts. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge To the university of Auckland. 1) This stub has been severely pruned a year ago, with no explanation, and made a good bit more sense then, which I always find suspicious. 2) The website for theology programs at U of Auckland doesn't seem to use this term for discussing the program itself [8]. It does not immediately appear to be a separate college or school within the university, but rather a program within the Humanities department. 3) A Google News search for the term turns up multiple hits, but none that I would call substantial, independent RS coverage. Jclemens (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a program within the University is not notable by itself NealeFamily (talk) 05:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of Auckland. No significant coverage found; non-notable subunit of larger institution. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 05:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Redirect if needed at best, nothing at all for a basic acceptable article here. Not at all convincing, SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 3 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. Nakon 04:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spredfast

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

My searches have found a few several links at News and Highbeam but nothing particularly suggesting solid in-depth coverage to suggest solid independent notability, the current links are not convincing enough and the NYTimes link never actually mentions them apparently and, even if it had, there's nothing for inherited notability because of that event. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just commercial PR blurb. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:12, 26 May 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. Nakon 04:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adnan Shennib

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

My searches have found nothing better at all for an actual independently notable article and there's not inheriting notability. Notifying recent taggers Shirt58 and Omni Flames. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. From the sources currently in the article, [9] and [10] appear to be self-published and so don't show notability. [11] doesn't mention him specifically, only the company he supposedly founded, and [12] is valid, however, it only mentions him briefly. A quick search also found [13], but I'm still not convinced that the subject meets GNG. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 07:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article on a non-distinguished inventor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:50, 29 May 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. Nakon 04:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh Dill

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

No indication of notability, and no independent sources. Brand new TV series which will perhaps become notable but at this point it is too soon for an article. bonadea contributions talk 05:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried searching for sources about the show but could find nothing. The actors and creators are notable so the information should be out there, right? Searching for the director plus the lead actors also provided nothing. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 26 May 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. Nakon 04:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcebits, Inc.

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

Still questionable for WP:CORP and WP:GNG with none of the listed sources solid enough and my sources also found several links at News and Highbeam but still nothing solid enough. SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't pass WP:CORP. Tom29739 ^[talk] 21:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nothing substantial to show notability DGG ( talk ) 03:02, 3 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. Nakon 04:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fueled

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

Nothing currently better for WP:CORP and WP:GNG, simpyl a locally New York-based company and the Business-Insider source being the best of all but that's simply basically a tour, nothing convincing for the applicable notability. My searches particularly found several notable news sources at News, but still nothing to suggest solid notability. It's worth noting this was actually started by replacing a 2009 link, thus not actually starting as an expected new article. Notifying tagger Waggers. SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Thanks for the mention. Waggers TALK 07:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CORP. Tom29739 ^[talk] 21:06, 27 May 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. Nakon 04:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allie Beahan

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

fails WP:NFOOTBALL Joeykai (talk) 03:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has not played in a WP:FPL Seasider91 (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hasn't played in a fully professional league and there fails the notability guideline for association football. No evidence of passing the general notability guideline either. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:30, 28 May 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. General consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 03:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Construction History Society

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

Lack of notability, no independent secondary reliable sources. If the academic journal is notable, then that may justify its own page - it does not make the CHS notable by relation. Per WP:ORG, "No company or organization is considered inherently notable," and "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it." --Iamozy (talk) 01:43, 19 May 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 May 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I will research the notability question.--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have added three primary references to international conferences at Queens College, Cambridge. This is an international society with annnual lectures on the history of construction.--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:19, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DThomsen8, thanks for adding sources. However, I am confused as to how you concluded that the subject is notable. Per WP:ORG, "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." Iamozy (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This AfD should be in Architecture and Civil Engineering and England projects.--DThomsen8 (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to pass the academic notability barrier which is pretty easy to pass. I think there was some specific rule about SCOPUS which means just the magazine alone passes. I also noticed that a mention of this Society is at History of construction#The late twentieth century and has been there for quite the number of years. I changed the hyperlink there to a link to this article. I also added a note about the Construction History Society of America to this article since they seem easy to confuse. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Magoo, can you point to me specifically how this subject passes the academic notability guidelines? If only the journal passes notability, then this should be moved to Construction History (journal). Iamozy (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The society passes the GNG on its own and additionally their journal passes the notability test for academic journals of being abstracted and indexed in selective databases. The most useful way of presenting this information for our readers is in one article. I see no point having just the journal without an article for the organisation that publishes it. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable organisatiion that meets WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 00:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per all the above. AusLondonder (talk) 22:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The society isn't generally notable because most of those references are either from the organization itself or from Cambridge, which had been sponsoring the annual meetings. That said, I think there's a net positive to keeping an article about such a society. We really ought to have an SNG to presume notability for academic journals and their societies although I know the community isn't keen on SNGs. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chris, would it be a bad idea to propose a move of this article to Construction History (journal), which currently redirects to this page? It seems like this article would me most appropriate there. --Iamozy (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be a bad idea because, in my view, and that of the majority of the commentators thus far, this society is independently notable. If, when the AFD is closed, the closing is other than a 'keep' then the move can be readdressed. Just Chilling (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Iamozy: I'd prefer to see the society have an article that mentions the journal than the other way 'round. It looks like there's a consensus to keep so it won't matter. I agree with Just Chilling that the move should not be addressed until the AfD ends. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:52, 31 May 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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sayoko Hagiwara

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

Nothing currently actually suggesting better for WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG and there's simply nothing else convincing here, the Japanese Wiki also showed nothing else better. SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This may be one of those borderline cases. She apparently was a somewhat popular tokusatsu heroine in the 1980s, with a number of TV credits [14] and film credits [15] [16]. (Note she changed the kanji for her name at one point). She was then out of the business for about 20 years before returning in 2006. She apparently now is a regular presenter on TV shopping shows, but has appeared on some major variety shows [17]. There are a few pieces on her in the popular press that can be accessed now (or could be accessed at one point): [18], [19], [20]. She of course appears on fan sites like [21]. My feeling is that if we went back to the popular press in the 1980s, before the internet, we would find some more articles on her, possibly enough to pass WP:GNG. I'll see if Oya Soichi Bunko has anything. Michitaro (talk) 16:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No improvement in sight. The mentioned Japanese article is larger but doesn't have any sources either: [22]. If it were up to me I'd keep the article since she has credits in multiple articled productions, but alas that is not the Wikipedia way. However the Japanese Wikipedia article for her exists so if one wants to find information about her they can, with the help of some translation software. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep On second thought, after getting to know some of the roles, she does seem to have some amount of notability as the few roles were in quite popular shows. There doesn't seem to be mainstream English coverage but there does seem to be a niche English fanbase as well with unusable coverage, which is one of the notability criterias. This article has also been missing the {Expand Japanese} hatnote, as the Japanese article is much bigger even though apparently without citations as well. I think if it were slightly improved (more than I could, I mean) it'd look passable. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 00:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Michitaro's analysis and sources. Mainly active in a pre-internet era, the subject appears to pass WP:ENT. An article such as [23] clearly suggests some notability and provides a reliable overview for her career. Cavarrone 08:27, 2 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. Nakon 04:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Rajput clans of Lahore Division in 1911

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

What is the point of this, bearing in mind that the lead says "The appearance of a particular tribe as Rajput in the list does not in itself confirm that the tribe is Rajput or otherwise. Identity may change with time, and some groups in the list may no longer identify themselves as Rajputs." Also bear in mind that the 1911 census was not reliable, being subject to the huge misunderstandings resultant from the influence of H. H. Risley and other scientific racists. It's basically just a transcription of a primary source. Numeros similarly-sourced and formatted articles from the same creator have been deleted for these reasons, eg: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jat_clans_of_Multan_Division. Sitush (talk) 04:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 05:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 05:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia should not be mere statistics. This is something more suited to a census report or atlas, but not to an encyclopedia. - HyperGaruda (talk) 09:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTSTATSBOOK, and because the information is acknowledged in the article itself to be potentially inaccurate. We do not need an article for every statistical table and chart in the world. GAB^gab 14:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jennifer Lawrence#Filmography. Note that this means the FLC needs to be archived. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 03:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Lawrence filmography

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

A well-intentioned but premature content fork. The tables here took up less than 5% of her main bio's article space and their content is already covered there. No prejudice against recreation in the future when she's done more work, but it's simply too soon for this to have a standalone article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 05:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main article now. Can be a standalone list in the next 2-3 years. Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per ~~nom~~ Krimuk90. —Vensatry _(talk) 06:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Give it another few years and I believe we could have this filmography page again. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 04:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (speedy!) – As a primarily "film" actress without significant TV credits, a standalone "Filmography" article is not warranted here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Replace and redirect Filmography page is better sourced than the one on the main article, so it should replace the main article's filmography section. Agree with spinning it off when it gets big enough (consider WP:SIZESPLIT)AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kazurou Inoue. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 05:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ai Kora

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

This article has failed to satisfy WP:BK and the more general WP:GNG by showing any significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Almost all the sources on the article are primary, with one dead link from a retailer, and a news report about the manga's conclusion by ANN. A cursory Google search yields mainly fansites, scanlation sites, and blogs, none of which can be used to prove notability. 十八 22:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. 十八 22:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the author's article. Most news articles on Ai Kora briefly mention the concept but don't review the story in detail. A short paragraph in the biography would do the same justice. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to author article. I have a vague sense that there may be some english language mentions of this series beyond the 2 on ANN but it's been so long and I don't have any ideas where I had seen them. It's possible that there is something but right now there isn't.SephyTheThird (talk) 20:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Bones (rapper). Nakon 04:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paid Programming 2

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

Unsourced, and I don't think this has been released yet. Fails WP:NALBUM. Adam9007 (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bones (rapper).TheLongTone (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 26 May 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) SST flyer 02:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

University College of Engineering, Kariavattom

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

Notability and sources Anoop 20:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per longstanding consensus and precedent as an accredited degree-awarding institution. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it appears to be a small but real college, which we keep absent a need to start from scratch. Only problem I see is a possible lack of accreditation. Bearian (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Accredited by the University of Kerala, itself an accredited university. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As an accredited, degree-awarding institution. AusLondonder (talk) 07:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all others above. Accredited post-secondary education institution. Nom has been blocked for sockpuppetry. --Oakshade (talk) 03:34, 1 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. Nakon 04:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Predacons

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

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Maximals, this is an overly specific listing of characters based on a single character trait. The primary series in which they appear already has four character lists able to cover them in enough detail, List of Beast Wars characters, List of Beast Wars and Beast Machines characters, List of Beast Wars II: Super Life-Form Transformers characters, and List of Beast Wars Neo characters, so this listing is also redundant. TTN (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 19:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The criteria is too broad to be useful. It's unlikely a reader would be interested in all the characters across all the product lines at the same time. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Would a merge to Predacon be possible? Josh Milburn (talk) 12:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- agreed, this list is redundant to already existing lists. Nothing to be gained by keeping this, and it would be an improvement to reduce the clutter. Reyk _YO! 13:34, 27 May 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. Nakon 04:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Pishro

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

No evidence of notability; PROD removed by creator without comment. —swpb^T 15:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 15:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 15:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 19:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failure of WP:GNG and WP:MUSBIO. To my knowledge, this artist has not been the subject of "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." The only source cited is iTunes, and I couldn't find anything better anywhere else, save for one article in the Financial Times from 2008, which is more about Iranian rappers in general (many are mentioned) rather than Mr. Pishro himself. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 20:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Nunnery Wood High School. seems the best solution, and is a frequent way we handle this DGG ( talk ) 02:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nunnery Wood Primary School

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

Non notable primary school - Originally tagged under A7 and then A3 however I don't think both applied so decided to list here, Anyway can't find anything on Google and as it stands the article is a one-liner with the school badge,
Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only online sources I could find (using Google News) were to trivial local events (e.g, Egg-and-spoon race, community gardening etc). Just single events, nothing long-term or fundamental. Possibly redirect (as originally suggested by User:Drmies) to the secondary school, which, whilst a distinct body, the primary school is probably (almost certainly) a feeder school to. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I hadn't spotted that - Well I wouldn't have any objections to redirection if that's prefferred :), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

here- it was removed with the AfD notice :) _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 02:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 02:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication that this primary school is sufficiently notable for an individual article. Favonian (talk) 16:03, 2 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. Nakon 04:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marc MacYoung

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

Nothing to show he's a notable martial artist (WP:MANOTE) or author. Lacks the significant independent coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Nothing in his film career shows notability, either.Mdtemp (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He definitely has a presence for those that follow this sort of thing. By coincidence he popped up on my Facebook page shortly after I saw this AfD. He is prolific and has a fan base (not me) but not sure that would meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Can not bring myself to vote either way - just saying.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is mentioned in a number of blogs. The problem is that my search didn't turn up what I believe is significant independent coverage from multiple reliable sources. I didn't see anything that shows his books allow him to meet WP:MANOTE or WP:NAUTHOR. The burden of proof is on those who claim notability and I don't believe that's been shown. Of course, if someone can point me to some good sources I will reconsider my vote. Papaursa (talk) 02:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 19:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 05:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 05:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 05:12, 26 May 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. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 02:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ace (yacht)

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

Unreferenced article about a yacht that "has many unique features". I suspect an intent to promote, and can't see that notability is met. I originally declined an A7 as inappropriate, and prodded. Prod has been removed with no reason given and no change made. Peridon (talk) 12:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unreferenced article with promotional tone. I can't find anything to suggest this yacht is notable, or distinguished from many others - it's not the biggest or most expensive, for instance, and doesn't seem to be associated with any notable incidents. Neiltonks (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I first said, nothing St all for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 15:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - OK, the article is unreference and promotional. Both of which are fixable. Sources should be available to do this, such as Superyachts, Charterworld, Moran Yachts etc. Was WP:BEFORE followed here, particularly section C1 & C3? Mjroots (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Moran link looks like a real bit of PR advert work, and the other two are sort of directory entries that merely establish existence. Feel free to fix it, but I couldn't find anything better than those, and don't consider they show notability. Peridon (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is easy to find sources for this such as Super Yacht Times and, at worst, we should merge into the list of superyachts, of which this is a middling size. That's our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 09:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That link is to a pure list description of the Ace, which bears a remarkable similarity to a section of the article here. I don't know which came first, but either that is a copy of the article, or the article contains a copyvio. Peridon (talk) 17:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I completly changed the layout & content of the article and found references for it. It is now less commercial & sourced. 102Legobrick (talk) 09:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). It's unclear whether or not the nomination and !vote following the nomination are based only upon the sources within the article, or if additional source searches were performed. Regarding the !vote following the nomination, "nothing convincing" comes across as possibly only being based upon sources in the article; it's an open-ended rationale, and is ambiguous. Note that per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is based upon the availability of sources, rather than the state of sourcing in articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Upstar

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

Non-notable company. The sources added do not meet Wikipedia's standards. The article text acknowledges as much, noting that the company has "low brand recognition", ie. is not notable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a somewhat newly started company with nothing convincing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). The !vote following the nomination appears to be based only upon the sourcing within the article. Note that per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is based upon the availability of sources, rather than the state of sourcing in articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Zipf

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and definitely WP:GNG. I found https://www.pastemagazine.com/blogs/av/2011/07/album-stream-andy-zipf---jealous-hands.html but that's not particularly significant coverage. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing here at all actually convincing of his own notability as an article. SwisterTwister talk 21:06, 27 May 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. Nakon 04:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bethany Curve

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

Lacking reliable sources to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Kelly ^hi! 10:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with the nominator. No charting performances and no reliable sourcing (indeed, virtually no independent sourcing at all). NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches have also found nothing better at all, nothing for the applicable notability and nothing else is convincing which is not surprising considering it seems they're not largely active. SwisterTwister talk 21:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Heart Rate of a Mouse

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

This is a non-notable, non-reliably sourced fan fiction book series that fails both WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. I originally prodded this article a month ago and the prod was removed when the overall plot was split into book plots, a character list was added and four sources were added. The first reference is the livejournal when the books were written and the other three references are goodreads.com that contain a basic plot description and readers' reviews, therefore none of these references are reliable and the article should still be deleted. Aspects (talk) 09:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Books-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The notability guideline for books applies, but I have found no sources that suggest this work is notable. Author currently has no individual article. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sometimes, very VERY rarely, a fanfiction will become notable enough to warrant an article or even a mention on Wikipedia. It takes an awful lot and most fanfiction never gain that coverage because there's just so many of them. For every Fifty Shades or Beautiful Bastard there are thousands upon thousands of fanfics that never gain any sort of mainstream attention. I can't find anything to show that this series is one of those rare exceptions. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, no reliable reviews found. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly not notable, fails WP:GNG, in general, fan fiction is not notable. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 13:49, 26 May 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. Nakon 04:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick McGrath (ice hockey)

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet NHOCKEY and I don't see anything to meet GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 12:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Short career for a non-notable mid-minors player. When the only source purportedly supporting notability given in the article is a blog attached to the subject's hometown (and small-town) newspaper, that surely doesn't clear WP:ROUTINE. Ravenswing 13:04, 1 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. Nakon 04:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matia Marcantuoni

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 07:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination does not address whether the subject is notable per WP:GNG. There is at least some coverage of him, such as this. Rlendog (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY and I can't find enough to satisfy GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 12:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Quite aside from the above, the source Rlendog cites is a blog post, not an acknowledged reliable source, and a good example bolstering WP:CRYSTAL, in that it touts the subject (who's struggled to remain in the minors as a third- or fourth-liner) as a future NHL superstar. Yet another creation by Dolovis in defiance of all-but-unanimous consensus that appearances in the world juniors or amateur tournaments don't meet the criteria of NHOCKEY. Ravenswing 13:10, 1 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 keep. Nakon 04:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Teodors Bļugers

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 07:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:NHOCKEY 1st criteria unless AHL does not count as top league.patidaba (talk) 8:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

No the AHL does not count as a top league according to WP:NHOCKEY/LA. Joeykai (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, though obviously WP:USUAL applies. When he makes it to the NHL, he's in. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to get enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, e.g., [24]. Although this is English Wikipedia, non-English sources count towards notability. Rlendog (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Rlendog. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 13:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He actually does pass WP:NHOCKEY under criterion #4 as he was a First team all-star this year. His WP:GNG argument is weak right now, the two citations currently in the article are very weak, but after a quick search there is probably just enough out there for him to squeak by this time. Deadman137 (talk) 02:09, 2 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. R. White

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

non-notable chess player. There are thousands of FIDE masters. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. The reference is a 404. ThatOtherPersonY (talk) 02:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll fix the ref, but still no notability. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if the reference worked, a link to a FIDE profile doesn't establish any notability. --SubSeven (talk) 03:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No secondary sources, barely a claim to notability. Fails WP:BIO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable. I'd have CSD'd it while stub-sorting except that I wasn't sure whether "FIDE Master" was a get-out-of-jail card like "once played one county level cricket game", for notability (I asked at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chess#Notability). PamD 07:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus within WikiProject Chess (as opposed to the wider wikipedia community) is that players with the top title of Grandmaster are considered notable, players with the 2nd tier title of International Master may be notable and players with the next tier title of FIDE Master or no FIDE title probably aren't notable unless they're well known in some other capacity (e.g. authors, magazine editors, administrators etc). This is less strict than the definition in WP:GNG, but MJRW doesn't even meet the looser definition of notability that has evolved at WP Chess. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not notable at all, fails both WP:GNG and chess players' notability criteria. Sophia91 (talk) 11:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MaxBrowne. No significant coverage online from WP:RS. Article creator has twice tried to add unsourced claims about a false arrest. It's currently sourced only by a tweet by subject. OnionRing (talk) 22:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stay per MrRealAle. The player is noteworthy for their ability to hold down a noble profession as well as achieve a significant master category. FIDE master is considered important, together with IM and GM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.251.15 (talk) 09:53, 30 May 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yannick Tifu

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 03:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Although he fails WP:NHOCKEY, I think he passes WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he is notable Jigglypuff 109 (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The ECHL is not a league that automatically gets its players over WP:NHOCKEY just because they're in it. And of the six sources here, five are press releases from hockey teams themselves, thus primary sources that cannot assist notability at all, and the only one that actually constitutes media coverage is the local newspaper in the town where he currently plays — which means WP:GNG has not been met, because substantive media coverage in multiple reliable sources has not been shown. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
His coverage is not fully reflected in the article. The Reading Eagle article here is not the only article they've done about him, although most of the ones available on Google are pretty minor coverage. But he has also gotten coverage elsewhere: [25], [26], [27]. And even some articles about his bobblehead [28]. I still think this is a close call, since much of the coverage directly of Tifu is relatively short. But he has had a pretty long career, even though most was in the low minors, and there could well be coverage not easily available on Google. Rlendog (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources assist: bctv.org and capitalsoutsider are blogs, WFMZ is still a local media outlet covering the town where he currently plays, and the Brossard Eclair is a community weekly newspaper in his own hometown. So none of them help achieve a GNG pass; the only two that count as reliable sources constitute local coverage in exactly the places where a hockey player at this level would be expected to garner coverage, and thus fall under WP:ROUTINE. Bearcat (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that WFMZ is a local media outlet near the town he plays in and that Brossard Eclair is in his hometown (or that the Reading Eagle is in the town he plays in) is irrelevant if they are providing significant coverage of Tifu. Local coverage is not automatically WP:ROUTINE. If bctv is a blog that may be relevant (although some blogs are reliable sources) but I am not sure it is a blog. Rlendog (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it very much is relevant where the media coverage is coming from. Local media outlets would be expected to offer coverage of their local junior hockey team, or of the early accomplishments of emerging but not-there-yet local talents — but if a person doesn't actually satisfy a specific Wikipedia inclusion criterion, then to get over WP:GNG on "because the media coverage exists" grounds the coverage does have to expand significantly beyond the bounds of the purely local. Exclusively local coverage can't be enough in and of itself to get someone into an encyclopedia, because then we'd have to start keeping articles about fry stand operators and PTA presidents and disabled kids who got introduced to their favourite football player by the Make a Wish Foundation and small-town fire chiefs — many of whom are the subject of at least as much, if not even more, purely local coverage as has been shown here. Bearcat (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is an interesting interpretation of WP:GNG. But not what's actually in the guideline. While local media would be expected to cover the local teams, they do not necessarily provide specific coverage of everyone who plays for the team. Rlendog (talk) 23:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that is a standard interpretation of it. It is the reason why not every local politician gets an article for example. That is why we usually ask for articles from outlets not just in a local players town otherwise we consider it WP:ROUTINE. Otherwise highschool athletes start meeting WP:GNG in cities where there are multiple news outlets that do fluff pieces on local athletes. From the top of that page "Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope." -DJSasso (talk) 11:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And thinking about it, I remembered that Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#High school and pre-high_school athletes even says for highschool aged athletes that local papers are not good enough. -DJSasso (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per TonytheTiger and Rlendog.--Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 13:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While there is one source that shows some coverage, I cannot find enough to meet the "multiple" requirement. Most of what is on the page doesn't go to show notability. -DJSasso (talk) 11:52, 1 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Sundher

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 03:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 75th overall is pretty good Jigglypuff 109 (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make him notable. Joeykai (talk) 03:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One, I'm afraid, of a number of spurious Keeps in the last week by this new editor. Upon what basis do you think he's notable? Ravenswing 04:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Career minor-leaguer with no particular accomplishments. Fails both NHOCKEY and the GNG, doesn't meet any notability criteria. Ravenswing 04:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet NHOCKEY and I can't see anything meeting GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 12:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not finding significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 16:51, 1 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). The !vote following the nomination appears to be based only upon the sourcing within the article; "as nothing here ...(et al.)" Note that per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Toes in the Sand Recordings

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

Company with questionable notability. It should be noted that the EL is not a dead link, but rather it seems to go to a page in Japanese, not a American record label (must of been a dead URL that got bought out by something else). Page was ignore for a while as well, but that's not the reason for the AFD, but as I said a questionable notability. Wgolf (talk) 00:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC) an only find a number of web sources like this one, none of which seem reliable to me. Willing to be persuaded otherwise, if sources can be found. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing here at all actually suggesting solid independent notability for an article. SwisterTwister talk 20:39, 27 May 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. Nakon 04:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Gold

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

User:Jytdog prodded it with the following rationale: " subject does not meet WP:GNG", to which I'd add "and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies)/Wikipedia:Notability (music) requirements. " It was deprodded by User:Kvng with the following rationale "significant coverage in Chicago Tribune makes this borderline; please don't use PROD to delete borderline articles". The article in CT seems reliable, however it is the one and only piece of reliable, in-depth coverage I can see. Outside of that, the subject is very, well, small-time, and has not attracted serious coverage that I can find (there are certainly passing mentions and such, but those don't suffice). PS. There are also additional COI issues here discussed on article's talk, but they should not affect a decision to keep this or not. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per my original PROD. Thanks for following through. Jytdog (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 05:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 05:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unable to find any other significant coverage. I added a second ref but it is somewhat WP:ROUTINE and so I don't believe it meets WP:SIGCOV. ~Kvng (talk) 15:33, 26 May 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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huth (noble family)

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

PROD contested so sending to AfD. Article has no sources, and it is unclear from the one line of unreferenced text how reliable sources could be found. My searching for sources (searches for combinations of "Huth", "nobility", "norway" and "1776") has yielded only Wikipedia mirror sites. LukeSurl^{t c} 13:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Store norske leksikon would probably have an article on the family if it were notable. The encyclopedia only has this one article about a Huth. Geschichte (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 05:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- unverifiable. My search for sources has come up just as empty as the other two commenters. Reyk _YO! 11:30, 30 May 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) st170e^talk 04:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reptile World Serpentarium

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

Not notable, currently basically unreferenced and no significant third-party coverage appears to exist (I can find mentions in "list of local attractions"-type places but that's it). Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. I started out with Keep, and after a few minutes, realized that this subject deserves a speedy keep! There are plenty of sources. [29], [30], [31], [32], [33] and dozens more. There's plenty of non-directory type of coverage, from news and other sources like abc, orlando sentinel for the snakebite coverage. Boy's Life (The boy scouts of America pub) did an article. Men's Journal. Reptile world. This has tons of significant third-party coverage! Jacona (talk) 12:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that while the article does not include the many reliable sources available, that is not required. The fact that they are available is sufficient for for the article to exist. Jacona (talk) 12:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These examples to me look like either incidental mentions (Men's Journal, abc11) or puff pieces (Orlando my way, Orlando sentinel), neither being what I would call "significant coverage". But YMMV; I don't really know what criteria are generally accepted for place article.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are certainly plenty of puff pieces on attractions, but these are news stories covering incidents at the serpentarium, incidents involving reptiles, incidents about people involved with the serpentarium (particularly George Van Horn), who are frequently quoted whenever "snake events" are being discussed. If they aren't enough, here's some more: [34]? [35]? They don't have to be noted herpetologists to be notable. They've gotten more significant coverage than probably 70% of articles. Orlando Sentinel Fox news USA Today. This looks like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, (I don't particularly like it myself), but there are plenty of WP:RS's

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The addition of this episode of Only In America with Larry the Cable Guy (on the History Channel), in which he goes to the Serpentarium, brings it from a very weak keep based on the above sources to a keep per WP:GNG. That this attraction has been around for 40 years means there likely exists sources (especially from when it was new) that aren't easily accessible via the Internet. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:23, 27 May 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy as a Soup Sandwich

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

This episode article lacks any references relating to critical impact or reception. There do not seem to be any viable sources through Google searches. TTN (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the episode is notable because its story has inspired a segment in a comic book adaptation and it was written by a famous author. Sro23 (talk) 07:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's your own indicator of notability rather than Wikipedia's indicator of notability. The article needs reliable sources on real world impact and reception. From what I can see, there's pretty much nothing for this episode. Unlike random character articles, TV episodes have a much better chance of establishing notability, so please do feel free to find sources. I'll gladly withdraw the AfD if some are found. The most this needs in its current state would be a disambiguation page pointing to an episode list, comic book list, and Slippage (book). TTN (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sro23. I don't understand why this is even up for deletion. 202.49.183.1 (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those reasons are insufficient per the notability guidelines. That the story is one of literal thousands written by an author with a long history really isn't anything special without reliable sources commenting on it in some fashion. I doubt even .5% of his stories merit articles on this site. That it was adapted to a comic book is not notable at all unless there are reliable sources talking about that adaptation somehow being special. TTN (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added more information about its reception and adaptations, with sources. It now has more reviews and sourced content about its impact than most TZ episode articles. Sro23 (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 26 May 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. Nakon 04:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs Globe Classic

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 11:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added 2 third party news sources to substantiate Mrs Globe Classic beauty pageant, Mrs Riana Mooi a finalist for Mrs South Africa flew to be part of the panel of judges for this contest. (Australianblackbelt (talk) 14:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Just added another third party source for the Mrs Globe Classic pageant this for the one for Kasha Grimes winner of Mrs Globe classic in UK who flew to USA to compete for the inaugural competition(Australianblackbelt (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources in the article do little more than establish that the pageant exists, without discussing it in any great depth. My first thought here was that the nomination might best be addressed as a redirect. But I couldn't find an appropriate target for it. Neither the pageant's president (Tracy Kimble) nor its beneficiary (the WIN Foundation) appears to have an article. More puzzling is the fact that, although the instant pageant was formed by splitting an earlier pageant (i.e., the instant pageant requires contestants to be a certain minimum age), the "parent" pageant (Mrs. Globe) doesn't have an article, either. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by DGG under criteria WP:A7 and WP:G11. (non-admin closure) /wiae /tlk 22:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spear Alliance

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

This is an article written by a single-purpose account about a firm that does not meet the corporate notability criteria. There are simply no high-quality references discussing the firm at all.

My WP:BEFORE search did not turn up any reliable, independent sources of information with in-depth coverage of Spear Alliance. (I used Google, Google News, Google Newspaper Archive, Google Books, JSTOR, Bing and Highbeam. I also briefly searched using the company's former name, "HKO Consulting".) As a result, the subject fails to satisfy WP:CORP or WP:GNG. /wiae /tlk 02:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:08, 26 May 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. sufficient consensus. DGG ( talk ) 02:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Mawuli

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

Fails WP:GNG with no secondary sources. Sources are all WP:PRIMARY articles by Mawuli, except for one "David Mawuli Named As Official Publicist For Lil Shaker" press release. McGeddon (talk) 12:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A somewhat promotional article on a person without evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. (The article was largely edited, and may have been created, by an editor with a clear conflict of interest and a history of promotional editing.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's not enough to just mention a wide variety of the man's opinions and who he's been associated with. There seems to be nothing solid here in terms of reliable sources. I don't see a reason to think that he's really notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Charlotte County Public Schools. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 14:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Murdock Middle School

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

Middle school with no real claim to notability. Eight years ago, this article barely survived deletion because of receiving blue ribbon status. Blue ribbon status is now so common, having been conferred on a hundred thousand or so schools, that it really isn't much of a notability claim at all. This should be redirected or merged to Charlotte County Public Schools in accordance with longstanding tradition evidenced by WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and the thousands of middle schools in Category:Redirects from school articles. Jacona (talk) 02:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC) Jacona (talk) 10:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (Port Charlotte, Florida) - Although partial nobility has been established with the National Blue Ribbon Schools Program, information more or less belongs on the Port Charlotte article as information is already there about school awards and no other notable criteria has been established for this middle school since the AFD in 2008. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 13:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Charlotte County Public Schools - not seeing any compelling reason to keep as a stand-alone article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Charlotte County Public Schools; blue ribbon status is a weak indicator of notability without verifiable evidence of sourcing. — Esquivalience (talk) 01:56, 29 May 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. Criteria A3 (no content except link) and G11 (promotion) apply. —C.Fred (talk) 01:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mac-Warehouse

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

Appears to be more of a promotional ad rather than an encyclopedic article. Misceditor1000 (talk) 00:37, 26 May 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) SST flyer 02:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vintage print

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

Poorly written, and somewhat confusing to the uninitiated. It's been unreferenced since 2009 and is edited maybe once or twice a year. There is no claim of notability nor is the subject fully explained. HarryKernow (talk to me) 00:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And your reason for deletion is? Certainly notable, and somewhere we have a better article on this, to which this should be redirected. Johnbod (talk) 03:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod The reason for deletion is clear. There is no substance in this article worth keeping, no references for years, and nothing notable for years. It isn't even indicated from the text that "vintage prints" are notable in any way and doesn't show really what they are or how they are classified, or anything. HarryKernow (talk to me) 03:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a plus, from the edit rate (some years don't even have edits) this is clearly not a worthy article and generates very little traffic. HarryKernow (talk to me) 03:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, perhaps make a footnote in some photography article. While it looking bad and being unreferenced are not appropriate deletion criteria, WP:NOTDIC is, and I may be stretching with it a tad here, but the way the subject is described in the article is basically a definition, and a seemingly subjective one at that. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 05:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is not the dictionary definition and while the article is poorly written and definitely need expansion and rework (hence, it was marked as stub for quite a time), it's a legit term and should not be deleted. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhere, there is a rather detailed article on what constitutes an original print (or whatever the term is) by big-name classic photographers like Adams. Can't find it though. At least Vintage photography no longer redirects to Erotic photography, after I changed it. Johnbod (talk) 16:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod Do you think merging Vintage print and Vintage photography would work? HarryKernow (talk to me) 06:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That just redirects to History of photography, which doesn't really go into much detail. But somewhere we have a better target. Johnbod (talk) 12:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Vintage print is a term in the Art and Architecture thesaurus. Unless there is a better article that it can redirect to, it should be kept as a stub. Mduvekot (talk) 12:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mduvekot. Johnbod (talk) 12:52, 30 May 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.

[1] "Notability (People)". Wikipedia.

[2] Mascaro, Lisa. "More Republicans urge Todd Akin's departure despite slim poll lead". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 26 May 2016.

[3] "Notability (People)". Wikipedia.

[4] Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Brunner_(CEO). {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]