Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 1 April 3 April >

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edward F. Group[edit]

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

I found little independent coverage of this person. Most sources in the article are not reliable, e.g. the Scientology front Citizens Commission on Human Rights, quack site NaturalNews, naturalhealth365.com which promotes homeopathy, and a blog at the Puffington Host. There is a brief mention in the New York Times, though it fails to impress wrt notability. Manul ~ talk 23:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Manul ~ talk 23:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Manul ~ talk 23:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This person has provided a couple of quotes that appeared in the mainstream press in features articles that were covering celebrity colon cleansing, but this doesn't meet WP:BASIC. A lack of coverage in reliable sources means that notability has not been established. Drchriswilliams (talk) 09:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as my searches found nothing and, despite the article seeming acceptable, it's still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 03:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He is a chiropractor who is aggressive in promoting himself, no sign of notability. The line that he is a medical doctor seem questionable since where he recived his medical education is not identified at all. Even if he were a medical doctor that would not make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 9 April 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) SSTflyer 02:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Clarke (actor)[edit]

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

Delete: non-notable actor; fails WP:GNG and WP:N. Quis separabit? 23:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Definitely a notable actor. Clarke is one of the longest-serving American soap opera actors at 39 years, the second-longest-tenured original actor on Days of our Lives after Frances Reid, and a nominee of a Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama Series, fulfilling WP:GNG and WP:N. There are actors with much less in notability or accolades with Wikipedia pages. FrickFrack 10:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep as he has two Emmys and all of the current information is entirely acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 18:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 9 April 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. Overall consensus is to Keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 20:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Bezděková[edit]

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

No sources conform WP:RS, WP:ONEEVENT, WP:CRYSTAL. Doubtable notability. The Banner talk 23:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
None are needed. After you take 60 minutes to add some of the many available czech sources to the article, I will do the same.--Milowent • hasspoken 03:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The winner of this contest is notable enough and recieves enough coverage in the Czech press to have an article. What next, will there be a nomination to delete the article on Erica Harold, Sharlene Wells and every other winner of Miss America?John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, her name is Erika Harold. Her later run for the US House is not enough to make her notable, since she lost the Primary. Even winning the primary would not make her notable, although if she had won the primary in the district she ran in she probably would have won the general election.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, winner of the Česká miss, which is a notable competition widely watched by the Czech media and public generally. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 17:06, 9 April 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Gagea[edit]

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

Evidence of notability is slight indeed. Let's look at the external links. This one doesn't mention the subject at all. This is his CV. These two are directory entries, with the further strike against the first one that it's someone's personal webpage. And finally, this quotes him a little, but actual the topic of the article is Jacques Cousteau, with whom our subject was briefly and tangentially associated. Taken together, I think it's pretty clear the subject fails WP:PROF, WP:ATHLETE, WP:BIO and any other relevant policies. - Biruitorul Talk 21:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the applicable notability has no obvious signs, article simply not convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 03:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lack of sources to support notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that one of the top three awards claimed to have been won is from the American Biographical Institute makes me unwilling to research this further. Awards are issued by that organisation for giving them money, not for notable achievements, so, even if the subject is notable, it is clear that this article was created for the purposes of promotion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:38, 9 April 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

River Swift Football Club[edit]

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

Seems promotional, non-notable. If you look under "current squad" you will see the name "Harry Simmons." If you go to the edit history the only user who has edited this article is Harrydlsimmons. Music1201 (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable local club. GiantSnowman 10:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the club needs a lot more coverage to become notable...Jokulhlaup (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lack of, or, in this case, a total absence of third-party reliable sources about the club. I also think that it is unlikely that David Beckham is on their books! Spiderone 18:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:FOOTYN has never played in a national competition, nor is eligible for one. Looking at the article and the foundation date, have they even played any matches yet? Fenix down (talk) 07:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no indication of significant coverage. C679 10:17, 8 April 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) SSTflyer 02:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abi Ann[edit]

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

No significant claim of notability; fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO; promotional. Article sourced to press releases & non-notable "awards". NOTE: Editors may wish to review article history; removal of material due to promotional concerns. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - however, this is a very hesitant "keep". Seems to barely pass GNG. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -the article looks much more on par with all the promotional info that wasn't sourced and poorly added to the lead gone, and being on the national tours for Kelly Clarkson and Eli Young Band and part of Radio Disney makes a case for WP:MUSICBIO Burroughs'10 (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Burroughs'10, Of the 12 criteria listed at WP:MUSICBIO, which are met? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 03:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Marginally 8&9.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  11:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I find no evidence that the "Indie Music Awards" is even close to a "major music competition", and she certainly hasn't won or been nominated for any major awards. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 14:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  05:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, seems to barely meet notability requirements.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  11:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems notable, but the article should be highly improved.Masterofroks (talk) 12:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - All puffery, with no substance. For the Kelly Clarkson tour she was the most minor act of a total of three, and not even for the entire tour. The "Indie Music Channel" awards are not notable, as apparently this organization is just a small radio show for unknown acts. The Commemorative Air show "headlining" was no bigger than being the last performer on stage at a local festival in their own home town. And on the Jesse McCartney tour (The In Technicolor Tour) I can only find mention of her opening one of his concerts. Other concerts on that tour were opened by other minor artists. This is written by a SPA account (really, their only edit was to create this article) as an attempt to be seen as notable. In fact, judging from the edit summary left by the article creator, I'd almost guarantee this creator was paid for the work. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 14:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -Actually InsertCleverPhaseHere, I was thinking WP:MUSICBIO #4 for the concert tours with Kelly Clarkson and Eli Young Band, and #11 for being part of Radio Disney Burroughs'10 (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  21:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
    1. Gomez, Adrian (2015-08-21). "Abi Ann was handpicked to open for Kelly Clarkson". Albuquerque Journal. Archived from the original on 2016-04-03. Retrieved 2016-04-03.

      The article notes:

      Abi Ann didn’t expect much to come out of this summer. That is, until Kelly Clarkson came calling.

      The 18-year-old was handpicked by the Grammy Award winner to open for her summer tour.

      ...

      Abi Ann released her first EP, “17,” earlier this year.

      ...

      Abi Ann soon will be finished with touring and will begin her first year at Belmont University in Nashville, Tenn., where she will study entrepreneurship.

    2. Lopez, Rich (2015-12-20). "A landmark year has put Midland singer on the map". Midland Reporter-Telegram. Archived from the original on 2016-04-03. Retrieved 2016-04-03.

      The article notes:

      When Midlander Abi Ann talks about her milestones, she starts with her age. Turning 18 was a big deal for the singer, followed by graduating from Campbell Hall School in Studio City, California, and starting her studies at Belmont University in Nashville.

      ...

      In January, Ann released her EP “17” with its first single “Future Ex-Boyfriend,” a smartly-penned track that set the bar high with a clever hook and feisty attitude.

      Her second single, “Truck Candy,” was picked up by Disney Radio and is now in regular airplay.

      ...

      In early December it was announced that Ann was part of the lineup for Bud Light’s Country Fest 30, which is June 16-19 in Cadott, Wisconsin. The music festival will be headlined by Kenny Chesney, Carrie Underwood and Dierks Bentley, to name a few.

    3. Stefano, Angela (2015-07-11). "Interview: Country-Pop Newbie Abi Ann Looking Forward to Summer Vacation on the Road With Kelly Clarkson". The Boot. Townsquare Media. Archived from the original on 2016-04-09. Retrieved 2016-04-09.

      The article notes:

      Most young adults spend the summer between high school and college working a minimum-wage job, savoring their waning time with hometown friends and making the most of good weather and freedom. Singer-songwriter Abi Ann is going to be spending hers on the road with Kelly Clarkson.

      Beginning on July 11, the 18-year-old Midland, Texas, native will be an opening act on Clarkson’s Piece By Piece Tour.

      ...

      But Ann also knows the importance of getting an education — “I’ve always loved to learn,” she says, “and education has always been a huge priority for me” — so, in the fall, she’ll do what many other recent high school graduates will do: start college. She’ll be studying entrepreneurship at Nashville’s Belmont University, taking online classes and compacted on-campus courses so that she can balance learning with her music career.

    4. Thompson, Gayle (2015-12-09). "Watch Abi Ann Cover 'These Boots Are Made for Walkin' [Exclusive Premiere]". The Boot. Townsquare Media. Archived from the original on 2016-04-03. Retrieved 2016-04-03.

      The article notes:

      Country-pop newcomer Abi Ann is premiering her cover of Nancy Sinatra’s classic “These Boots Are Made for Walkin'” exclusively on The Boot.

      ...

      Ann is currently crossing the country as the opening act on the Eli Young Band‘s Winter Tour, and she spent her summer touring with Kelly Clarkson, on Clarkson’s Piece By Piece Tour. The 18-year-old released her EP, 17, earlier this year; it includes the single “Truck Candy,” featuring Walker Hayes.

    5. Chattman, Jon (2015-10-22). "A-Sides With Jon Chattman: Abi Ann's 'Truck Candy' and Star Quality". The Huffington Post. Archived from the original on 2016-04-03. Retrieved 2016-04-03.

      The article notes:

      Yes, Abi Ann has star quality and it means something.

      The 18-year-old Nashville-based singer/songwriter just graduated high school last June, but she’s already toured with pop star Kelly Clarkson and put out an EP.

      ...

      Earlier this month, the quirky, composed Texas native performed a pair of tracks — “Future Ex Boyfriend” and “Truck Candy” — off her debut EP and sat down for a chat at an A-Sides session, which was filmed at the Music Conservatory of Westchester in White Plains, NY.

    6. Pevos, Edward (2015-07-27). "Kelly Clarkson and Pentatonix show off their strong vocals at DTE in Metro Detroit". Booth Newspapers. Archived from the original on 2016-04-03. Retrieved 2016-04-03.

      The article notes:

      Abi Ann:

      Up and coming country singer Abi Ann got things started. The 18-year old singer from Texas was named America's Favorite Teen Country Artist in 2012 by the Independent Music Network.

      Ann has a strong voice and received a nice round of applause when her short set ended.

    7. "Abi Ann Premieres "Future Ex-Boyfriend" Music Video". Nash Country Weekly. 2015-04-16. Archived from the original on 2016-04-03. Retrieved 2016-04-03.

      The article notes:

      Singer Abi Ann may be only 17 years old, but she’s not one to shrink away or hide her true feelings.

      The Texas native’s new single, “Future Ex-Boyfriend,” is as brash as they come, an electric guitar- and fiddle-driven stomper sung from the perspective of a young woman who disposes of guys like used Kleenex.

    8. Frederick, Brittany (2015-02-22). "Abi Ann releases lyric video for new single Future Ex-Boyfriend". AXS. Archived from the original on 2016-04-09. Retrieved 2016-04-09.

      The article notes:

      Who is Abi Ann? The Texas native, born Abigail Dawn Ann Hoffman, has already begun to compile credits as she joins the ranks of teen country artists. She recently accompanied Jesse McCartney and Guinevere on the "In Technicolor" tour last year, and appeared with boy band IM5 on their "It's Getting Weird" tour, in addition to having multiple song placements in film and television.

      She was previously named Country Artist of the Year by Independent Music Network, an independent media outlet, and Featured Artist of the Week on ReverbNation. Indie Music Channel also recognized her in four categories: Favorite Country Artist, Country Songwriter of the Year, Teen Songwriter of the Year, and Artist of the Year.

    9. Frederick, Brittany (2015-03-28). "Country newcomer Abi Ann unveils new EP '17'". AXS. Archived from the original on 2016-04-09. Retrieved 2016-04-09.

      The article notes:

      Roughly a month after the debut of her single "Future Ex-Boyfriend," country singer Abi Ann is back with her full EP, entitled 17. The five-track record includes the songs "Future Ex-Boyfriend," "Cage Without A Key," "Truck Candy," "Your Side of Town" and "It's The Bones.

      In addition to performing, Abi Ann also wrote two of the pieces on the album, while "Future Ex-Boyfriend" was penned by Danny Myrick, Danielle Leverett and Ann Marie Boskovich.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Abi Ann to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 04:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: While there are a wide variety of sources here, most are passing mentions, interviews, small town publishers, or duplicate articles. The awards are non-notable. It wasn't an easy decision for me to make, but I just don't think she's quite there yet. I do think she'll be there soon. I think the article isn't in the greatest of shape either. If someone feels strongly about keeping this article, I'd rather see it be draftified, until more quality, reliable sources are found, and the article improved appropriately. Chrisw80 (talk) 04:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cunard, thanks for your reply. The Alberquerque Journal article is clearly an interview even if there is some biographical info (as most interviews do), the Nash Country Weekly article looks like a press release, and the HuffPo article is a blog (it says "THE BLOG" right at the top). Blogs, press releases, interviews, and the like are not useful for establishing notability. Even if the Nash Country Weekly article isn't a press release, we're still lacking sufficient reliable sources per WP:RS and WP:GNG. Chrisw80 (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chrisw80 (talk · contribs), the Albuquerque Journal article contains quotes from the subject because as all good reporters always attempt to do, journalist Adrian Gomez interviewed the subject of the article. That he interviewed the subject does not disqualify the article from establishing notability. Because much of the article is written in the journalist's own words, the article cannot be disqualified from establishing notability. Only interviews that contain primarily questions from the reporter and answers from the subject are disqualified from establishing notability. If all the quotes from Abi Ann are removed from the article, what is left still amounts to significant coverage of her.

    The Nash Country Weekly article is a review of her song, not a press release. The reviewer says the song is "an electric guitar- and fiddle-driven stomper sung from the perspective of a young woman who disposes of guys like used Kleenex". I searched for snippets of the text online to see whether any of it is used in press releases. The only sources that use that quotes are sources that cite what Nash Country Weekly said about the song.

    The Huffington Post blog post is acceptable under WP:NEWSBLOG, which says, "These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process." Journalist Jon Chattman is a "professional" journalist. From http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-chattman/: "His writing has also appeared in The New York Post, Wizard, Ultimate Marvel Magazine, the Danbury News Times, and TV Guide to name a few."

    I've added two new articles from AXS that provide significant coverage about Abi Ann.

    There is more than enough material here to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and defines "significant coverage" as "addresse[ing] the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content".

    Cunard (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete also as I was uncertain how to comment as the article is noticeably not better convincing and the Keep votes are actually mentioning how this article can be better improved and the first Keep actually says this itself. SwisterTwister talk 04:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly, the coverage is simply not enough yet, it's somewhat acceptable but this could certainly be better and we'll wait. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 9 April 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 Watercraft. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 02:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Watercraft registration[edit]

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

Virtually no content, see WP:WINAD, every single word and/or phrase is not required to have a page. Delete article or Merge and Redirect to Watercraft Sheepythemouse (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective Merge - Some of it can be merged in to Watercraft. –Davey2010Talk 01:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as needed since this is mentioned, this would compliment the other article as this is still questionable for its own. SwisterTwister talk 03:54, 9 April 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  09:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Brooks (actress)[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No independent reliable sourcing. Not only does her scene award fail PORNBIO standards, she received the award for a film that was never released and apparently does not exist, a point that was inexplicably discounted in the previous AFD. The UKAFTA awards were notoriously pay-for-play, and should not be treated as significant. (Prior AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Brooks (pornographic actress)) The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - UK Adult Film and Television Awards winner, meets of PORNBIO. Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)     19:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above - Fails PORNBIO and GNG. –Davey2010Talk 23:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails GNG and PORNBIO Spartaz Humbug! 19:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as still questionable for that applicable notability, delete at best for now. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The award was from a short-lived organization so doesn't meet the PORNBIO guidelines. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete, non-notable app from non-notable company. —C.Fred (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shopsurf[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable app. Fails WP:GNG for lack of available sources. - MrX 20:02, 2 April 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Grand Slam singles champions in the 2010s[edit]

List of Grand Slam singles champions in the 2010s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Same situation as recently deleted "List of Grand Slam singles champions in the 2000s".

Orphan article with duplicate content, already available in full at List of Grand Slam men's singles champions and List of Grand Slam women's singles champions. No requirement to merge or redirect. Wolbo (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:41, 2 April 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  09:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rickey BackWood$[edit]

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

Songwriter and producer with questionable notability who has been deleted before Wgolf (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy. I'm having a hard time finding RS, but the sheer number of results that are obviously about him suggests that he may be notable. If this is userfied, the creator can work on it as much as they want, and publish when it has enough sources. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sure he has signed to a notable label - sp what? Has he actually published anything? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as still questionable for at least minimal notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Signing to a notable label doesn't automatically equal notability. In the future when they release something of note I'd be welcome to a re-listing. The suggestion of userfication by White Arabian Filly might not be a bad idea in the meantime. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree that signing to a label means nothing until something is actually released and achieves notability. Also, unable to find any kind of independent verification that he, indeed, IS signed to a label. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:06, 7 April 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  09:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ariful Hasan Opu[edit]

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

The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. ~ Moheen (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep And improved so that it follows notability guideline for biographies.Masterofroks (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:42, 2 April 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interscholastic Table Tennis Illinois (ITTI)[edit]

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

High-school sports league that does not meet the notability requirements. Pichpich (talk) 19:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 9 April 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EMerchie.com[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable website. Fails WP:WEBCRIT. - MrX 18:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - web site article of unclear notability, lacking independent RS references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as too soon obviously. SwisterTwister talk 03:57, 9 April 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  09:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Turco[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited. Was unable to find sources. He has worked on some notable records, but mostly in technical aspects (mixing, sound engineer). He does not appear to have produced any notable albums or written any notable songs. Happy Squirrel (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete-per nom. I wanted to put a BLP prod but it does have sources. Wgolf (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment If you follow the articles link to Category:Canadian_audio_engineers you will find many that look much like this, with only one or two not very strong sources. I've run into this before for other categories with "Canadian" in the name, and it tells me that there are folks who are working to complete certain categories of articles. However, there doesn't seem to be adherence to notability or reliable sources. Is there a solution other than deleting the occasional individual article, while others are probably being created? I'm seeing a certain "one step forward, two back" in this. LaMona (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't know much about any such pattern, but given the article creator's contributions and the message left on my talk page, I would say that this was an independent effort. I think in general we need to be clearer about notability policies, and also point out that categories and lists are in no way meant to be exhaustive. Perhaps some kind of header text in categories. Anyways, in the meantime, I think deleting articles that fail notability guidelines and improving articles that pass them is our best bet. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 9 April 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 Iron Butterfly. non-admin closure SSTflyer 13:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Marinkovich[edit]

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

Delete: as utterly non-notable musician/performer. Fails WP:GNG. Article is a joke. Quis separabit? 18:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No notability at all...Masterofroks (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Iron Butterfly - Per WP:GNG and WP:BAND. I was able to find many sources that discuss the band Iron Butterfly; that wasn't an issue. However, I couldn't find significant sources that cover the person in-depth to satisfy WP:GNG. WP:BAND states the following: "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, such as solo releases". Hence, I believe that redirecting is the best solution for this situation. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect if needed as this is certainly questionable for its own article yet. SwisterTwister talk 03:58, 9 April 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Epidermolysis Bullosa Activity and Scarring index (EBDASI)[edit]

Epidermolysis Bullosa Activity and Scarring index (EBDASI) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This index was proposed in this paper which has only been cited two times and by the same authors as the original paper. As such it is a long way off meeting the GNG. SmartSE (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an exercise in crystal-balling. The method was only published in 2014, and no substantial third-party treatment of it is given in the references. Give the field a few years to evaluate it and try again. (As an aside, this is an interesting instance of camouflaging a lack of relevant references for the actual topic by very thoroughly referencing every peripheral point in the article...) -- Elmidae (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with analysis that the subject matter could perhaps be encyclopedic someday, but at this point in time it seems a bit too early. It appears as if the article was tagged for multiple issues, but the tag was removed here. — Cirt (talk) 01:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as simply too soon for improvements. SwisterTwister talk 03:58, 9 April 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  09:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hot B[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search and no one at WT:VG had anything. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please {{ping}} me if you find something noteworthy. czar 05:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 05:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. czar 05:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as searches are finding nothing particularly better. SwisterTwister talk 21:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this company did produce a number of notable game titles in the 1983-1993 period. The article lacks significant RS sources, but maybe it could be restructured as a list article instead, something like 'list of hotb games'. Since the company dissolved in the mid-1990s, there is no chance the article is promotional, so this one should be given a bit more consideration than the many spammy stubs for recent/current software developers.Dialectric (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the Hot B games don't have enough sources for their own articles either. czar 02:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 17:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although I believe there is relevancy here, as no reliable sources can be found about, it should be deleted, its a pity though. Masterofroks (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW MilborneOne (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ryanair Flight 3445[edit]

Ryanair Flight 3445 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bird strikes happen all the time to aircraft. In Australia, I think it happens a thousand times yearly. Not a notable incident. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a notable aircraft incident. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 17:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails the WP:GNG; modern media with space to fill report almost anything, this is no more notable than a burst water main in a road ([1] [2] [3] [4]). The reason the nominator mentioned bird strikes in Australia is that I used the aircraft bird strike rate for Australia (almost 2000 a year) in a deletion discussion a few weeks ago. In the UK in 2013 (the most recent year for which data are available) there were more than 1500 reported aircraft bird strikes, so this is literally an everyday event. YSSYguy (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Bird died, people didn't; bird strike that only caused minor inconvenience to the passengers. Nate • (chatter) 19:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per WP:GNG. Not a major or historical event that warrants the need for its own article. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – this is so non-notable; bird strike with no casualties nor serious damage; it happens every other day. --Deeday-UK (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Not even notable, no injuries, no serious damage and circling the airport 9 times is not even close enough. Also the mentioned flight doesn't even have an article of its own, so why make this article about an engine rather than a dented nose that could possibly break the plane wiring? --Planecrashexpert (talk) 00:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Bog-standard bird-strike with no consequences, Why waste the authors time and ours writing unnecessary articles???--Petebutt (talk) 03:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable birdstrike. Not comparable to US Airways Flight 1549 (a very notable birdstrike) in any way. Mjroots (talk) 14:31, 3 April 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  11:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Guerra[edit]

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

Autobiographical. Doesn't meet cyclist notability guidelines (only mentions domestic competition). Video game role is non-notable—needs secondary source coverage. czar 16:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar 16:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 16:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I'm also unable to confirm better for the applicable notability, the article has nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 9 April 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oathbound: Domains of the Forge[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Unreferenced article about an obscure RPG campaign setting. Google only turns up a handful of sale listings and blog posts. Kolbasz (talk) 16:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Kolbasz (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to be one in a line of products for Oathbound. Neither the game nor the publisher have articles, and as a non-notable game/expansion it would be better if the main game had an article to which this could be redirected.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 17:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No context was given, I didnt understand what was it about until i enter this discussion, I agree that the main game should have an article. Masterofroks (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not convincing of independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:02, 9 April 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 Buckethead discography. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 13:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Backwards Chimney[edit]

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

no significant coverage, not notable Gab4gab (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Not notable, poorly referenced. VanEman (talk) 16:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Procedural close. Article has already been deleted at 07:04 on 3 April 2016 by Kudpung (talk · contribs) as G11: "Unambiguous advertising or promotion: G11 - artspam" (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 19:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Luciano Marazzo[edit]

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

Promotional autobiography which comprehensively fails both the general criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people) and the alternative criteria at Wikipedia:MUSICBIO. All sources are either connected to the subject, blogs, passing mentions, routine event announcements, etc. I can find nothing better. Voceditenore (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. The article has been speedy-deleted per G11 – Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Voceditenore (talk) 07:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable, but needs better reference. Just tag it for improved references.VanEman (talk) 16:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VanEman, can you please explain on what basis you have determined that the subject is notable and what sources you have found that attest to this? I have been unable to find any. Voceditenore (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Opera. Voceditenore (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the article's citations are reliable or independent + no significant coverage available = not a notable subject. editorEهեইдအ😎
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 | 02:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brooks – The City of 100 Hellos[edit]

Brooks – The City of 100 Hellos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After trying to improve this article, I take no pleasure whatsoever in saying that I don't believe it meets WP:NFILM. After searching via a variety of methods, I can't find a single independent article in an WP:RS about the film, from a non-affiliated source. And the awards won are minor -- including the "Canada International Film Festival in Vancouver", one of those pay-to-play affairs and not to be confused with the Vancouver International Film Festival. Anyway, if someone can find some coverage I'll happily withdraw this. I love Canadian and doc cinema and it feels weird for me to bring this here, but I figure we still have enough notable films in this country still in need of articles. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indeed, on that note, Bearcat has been tireless in creating articles on Canadian Screen Awards winners and nominees but there are still lots of redlinks for both films and filmmakers so I'd encourage the article creator to consider filling in some of those, too, if he or she wishes. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
and...
year:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
filmmaker:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
type:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
studio:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
distributor:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
awards:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • link #3 is an independent reliable source: a Canadian Materials educational review article, which is a good find. #1, #2 and #4 are to various broadcasters pages, indicating only that it had aired (which is what I'd indicated in my deletion rationale when I mentioned "affiliated"). #5 are two Toronto Star links about Brooks and the phrase, not the film at all -- and the first, quite fleetingly and trivially. But that last link, #6, is a dead link: is there any way you could post it, perhaps as a cached page? CM is definitely one source, but I'd be looking for more before I reconsider. thanks. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I can see why the nom brought this here, but I think it meets GNG with coverage in reliable sources. An extra reference would help to establish significance, and of course the article could use work. Ajraddatz (talk) 07:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, well, even if it's stuck at two RS, I for one am not going to push the issue. Like, I said, if I'd been able to find the two refs now on the article myself, at most I would have slapped on a refimprove tag. So I'd like to withdraw this, especially as no one else seems to feel otherwise, after several days of this Afd. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:24, 5 April 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 (A7) by DGG. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 01:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bluview[edit]

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

Could not find any sources to establish notability. Lakun.patra (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.Lakun.patra (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Like the nominator, I failed to turn up any sources whatsoever. Kolbasz (talk) 16:14, 2 April 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 (A7) by DGG. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 01:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

China Greatvista Chemicals[edit]

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

No sources found to establish notability. On its website it mentions to be the "Top Manufacturer of Transparent Iron Oxide Pigment in China" but i could not find any suitable refs to support these. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:NCORP. Can't find any secondary sources describing this company. Kolbasz (talk) 18:34, 5 April 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 Frogstomp. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 01:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Findaway (Silverchair song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG. This song has not been the subject of in-depth discussion in the media, so it also fails WP:GNG. Binksternet (talk) 13:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Frogstomp: First transclude usable content, then move.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the Frogstomp album article. The song wasn't separately released so didn't chart, and isn't otherwise strongly covered in secondary sources. Orderinchaos 14:21, 5 April 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  17:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Music Now[edit]

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

Article is about a recently launched satellite TV channel with no references provided in the article. I could not find any in my own search, however the name "Music Now" makes it difficult to winnow through the results. Whpq (talk) 12:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Another non-existent Indian cable network which was 'recently launched', which we've had a bunch of so far this year. Nate • (chatter) 20:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:09, 2 April 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  09:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Old London Underground Company[edit]

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

Article appears to largely exist to give the company "a reputation", as it does not contain anything notable (the legacy project is TfLs, Dragons Den has its own article as does Down Street etc). The company has an active proposal to strike off it against it, and appears to be non trading with no accounts ever filed.

Appears to be nothing more than a vanity page for a company. King Rikk (talk) 12:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If any of the proposals associated with this company happen then it is possible it might be notable at that time - although it is most likely that it would be the tube station article that would be expanded in the first instance, with an article about whatever venture is housed there following if necessary. It seems unlikely to me that the company will be notable enough for more than a redirect to a section of the article about the venture or venue without some notability independent of that or operating multiple ventures. Thryduulf (talk) 21:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem to have been put there just to puff the company, but the idea from the company seems to be (slowly) going forward in another fashion; does that make it notable enough? David Landon Cole (talk) 12:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It might make the idea notable, but it doesn't make the company notable unless there is substantial independent coverage of the company and I'm just not seeing that. Thryduulf (talk) 13:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as too soon at best, nothing else convincing of independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:05, 8 April 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. Note that the last "keep" is by the same editor as the first one, so not counted.  Sandstein  14:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Halydean Corporation[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Many of the references do not mention the subject, others are directory entries or press releases. Several constitute original research attempting to prove that this is the oldest publicly traded company in the world, but I could not find independent, reputable sources that bear that out. ubiquity (talk) 03:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 03:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 03:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 13:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meets WP:COMPANY and WP:CORP Notability requirements for companies, commercial enterprises, and other for-profit businesses: Debate is taking place regarding whether or not this will be named the oldest public company in the world, which is notable. Topic is being discussed on the List of oldest companies talk section, as the company was not in the news until this year. Meets WP:GNG Article was incomplete at the time deletion nomination was made. It is now more complete. The emphasis of the article is on the history of the company, which was established in 1128. Holydean had dead links to this page, which prompted its creation after the availability of media coverage. There is no original research among the 13 independent, reputable sources, although at the time the article was nominated, the article was incomplete, and nominators comments were valid at that time. Insightfullysaid (talk)

~~Insightfullysaid~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insightfullysaid (talk • contribs) 13:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I beg to differ. When Insightfullysaid (talk · contribs) says "Topic is being discussed on the List of oldest companies talk section," he means that he has mentioned it there. There doesn't seem to be any other discussion. As for the 13 independent, reputable sources," here is my analysis:
  • 1,2,13: a press release saying who Halydean chose as their investment banker. Self-published.
  • 3-5,11: references to off-line registers and records. These are primary sources, and constitute original research (that is, i don't believe they assert "Halydean is the world's oldest company" but instead contain dates and other data from which one might draw the inference)
  • 6-10: do not mention Halydean
  • 12: link to State of Delaware corporate search page. Only proves that Halydean is registered, which does not demonstrate notability.
There is not a single appropriate source here demonstrating Halydean's notability. ubiquity (talk) 13:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Regarding references & notability under WP:COMPANY and WP:CORP:
  • 1: Jointly published press release. Contact number provided is for a 3rd party. Confirmation of brief general company description, name of CEO.
  • 2: The same jointly published press release. Reference to the company's claim of age, with quotation, "more than 100 years of operational history."
  • 13: The same jointly published press release. Reference to the company's current activities. These help to augment the article with basic information which is also verifiable on the company's website.
  • 3: This is a public-access government record in the UK, akin to a reference to a secretary of state's registry. Bear in mind that the English language we speak is not the same as the Norman Latin used in 1128 for the original records, so online access is less useful. However, the modern English version was cited by 10 according to Google Scholar, as: Thomson, J. M., Dickson, W. K., Paul, J. B., & Stevenson, J. R. H. (1984).Registrum magni sigilli regum Scotorum. The register of the Great seal of Scotland. Scottish Record Society in conjunction with Clark Constable.
  • 4: This reference is cited so often, it has its own wikipedia page here: Burke's Peerage. From wikipedia's page describing this reference: "Burke’s Peerage has provided authoritative genealogical records of historical families for more than 190 years." Mention in such a prestigious book as Burke's, in and of itself alone, adds notability. Burke's has been used as evidence in court, and is probably used as a reference in Wikipedia thousands of times.
  • 5: The Scottish Records Society reference is available online. I will find the link and add it to the references. This is a journal which is cited in other scholarly literature.
  • 11: This reference was found online, and links need to be provided. This will be added when I can find the link again. I will continue to improve the references by adding links. Agreed that Halydean is not the world's oldest company, but numerous online sources, peer reviewed journal articles, state records, and published books attest to its existence, notability, and age. Please continue to help me as an editor to improve my work to Wikipedia standards.
The sources, upon examination, meet WP:SOURCE, and some are better than others. However, none of the sources were self-published sources as described in WP:SPS, although one was jointly published with a bank, claiming to be the contact person. Jointly-published sources may be in question, but this would not affect the notability under WP:COMPANY and WP:CORP, though I do need to improve as a Wikipedia editor, especially in terns of the formatting of references. I have no appropriate source connections to any of the sources. In light of the comment above mistaking Burke's Peerage as "original research"... which is quite mistaken, I will take the blame for not adequately formatting my references which, upon a hasty review, could lead to that incorrect assumption. I hope it has been corrected. I created the article after doing a search on the company and seeing the need, and hope that the quality of the references is now more evident. Other editors will continue to expand this article. I hope that there are no WP:VI issues regarding its original tag for deletion, as all of the original problems have been corrected. User:Insightfullysaid (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Likely to be publicly traded soon [11] so I feel WP:LISTED is pertinent. The sources are not ideal but sufficiently reliable for me. Royalbroil 19:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The very recent press release says "plans to file." So we have no idea whether this will happen. The article doesn't mention it except in the infobox.
  2. WP:LISTED says "Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above." And yet, I still see no independent sources for Halydean's notability.
  3. WP:LISTED also says "major stock exchanges such as the NYSE." Is NASDAQ even considered major? Fewer than a third of NASDAQ stocks have Wikipedia entries. ubiquity (talk) 10:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at best as although this may've been founded centuries ago, simply none of this convinces improvements for a better article. Draft and Userfy at best, SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Owner Year Manner in which held
The Church 1128 Perpetual, tax-exempt ownership & civil rule[1]
The State 1545 Royal Burgh, held by the Crown[2]
Private Property 1602 Proprietorship of Barony & Lordship[3]
Corporate Shareholders 2014 Corporation owned by many shareholders[4]

Halydean is unique in that it was founded by the Crown owned by the Church (rivaled in Scotland only by St. Andrews), then owned by the State, then owned privately[5], and is now soon to be listed as a publicly traded company[6]. Under feudalism, Halydean had the legal authority of "pit and gallows," which is to say, to carry out the death sentence. The original charter also specified that the organization was tax exempt. [7]Insightfullysaid (talk) 12:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I find it highly notable that a corporation once had a license to kill. This section should be expanded, in my opinion. Insightfullysaid (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Regarding references & notability under WP:COMPANY and WP:CORP: A question was asked, "WP:LISTED also says "major stock exchanges such as the NYSE." Is NASDAQ even considered major?" According to List of stock exchanges The NASDAQ is the second largest exchange in the world, with $1.183 Billion in monthly trading volume. This is more than that of the next two largest combined, which are the London Stock Exchange ($165 Billion) and the Tokyo ($402 Billion). That would be a resounding yes. Insightfullysaid (talk) 00:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Godfathers of MMA[edit]

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

Non-notable self-published book. At first it seems very well referenced but then one notices the references are to events the book describes not to the book itself. The article is part of a walled garden with the originating author only editing and creating articles related to the company the book describes and the principles involved. I see a COI here. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello friends. I have seen the objection. May I please present more citations that are directly about this book. Some additional references that are only about the book:

I am an MMA student in a different country from this book's publication so please I am not the author of this book. I chose to start my wikipedia articles from the topic I knew better. I hope other esteemed evaluators and moderators will find this useful and make it a part of wikipedia. This topic is also covered well in news and has gained much media attention and attracted further works such as a documentary film based on the book. These sources are very reliable. Kindly keep this article on wikipedia. --Mietusr (talk) 08:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The article's sources, and those mentioned above, do not show significant independent reliable coverage about this book. There are some passing mentions and a number of mentions of Viola, but this book fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Mdtemp (talk) 08:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These references are much like a review of the book:

And then there is this review available on net on reliable source

When a film is made on a book and many reviews it is good candidate for wikipedia and other resources. A perfectly well written article should not go to waste. Is this enough to sway your argument? --Mietusr (talk) 06:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see the significant coverage required to meet WP:GNG or that this self-published book (the Viola family runs the Kumite Classic) meets WP:NBOOK. Pittsburghmma.com and osumagazine.com are blogs with nothing to show they're reliable sources for the reviews. In fact, pittsburgmma.com has business ties with Viola as it holds events in conjunction with the Kumite Classic. This book is already mentioned in the article on Bill Viola, Jr. so a redirect there would be acceptable to me. There is nothing that supports the claim that this book merits its own article on WP. Papaursa (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is to keep and nomination is withdrawn. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti Talk 19:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

O Tahiti Nui Freedom[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The article is about a canoe that undertook one expedition which received no minimal coverage aside from blogs. Ciridae (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Northamerica1000:, Agreed. It is still very minimal coverage though and does not warrant a separate article. As you've mentioned below, merging is one possibility but I don't think it will add any value to Outrigger canoe beyond the fact that it existed and that one expedition it undertook (that's hardly more than 2 lines). Ciridae (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Possibly merge to Outrigger canoe, which has no mention of the topic and would enhance the article, per WP:PRESERVE. North America1000 18:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are very few voyaging canoes at all in the world and they can all have articles, or at least be items in a list-article. There are just 13 other members of Category:Replications of ancient voyages (such as the famous voyage of the Kontiki led by Thor Heyerdahl from South America to Polynesia, and such as replication of original settlement of Hawaii). And there are just a few members of new Category:Voyaging canoes and new Category:Outrigger canoes. Of voyaging canoes, many are double-hulled ones rather than outrigger type, so this one is all the more unusual. If a list-article exists or could be started right now, the canoe could possibly be mostly covered in it, but there is already so much detailed information available in the article that it would already be time to split it out as a separate article.
I don't see how the nominator can know that there was "no coverage aside from blogs". The intended statement would be that they found no coverage besides in blogs, but even that is controverted by the source noted by Northamerica1000. I imagine there is other reliable source coverage, too, and that this canoe and its voyage will have to be covered again and again in books and articles reviewing replications of ancient voyages. I haven't myself searched Google scholar or books for this one; I think there's already enough reason to keep. --doncram 18:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Doncram: As I've already commented above, "no coverage" was inaccurate on my part and I've amended that. The coverage is minimal though and not significant enough to warrant a separate article. Ciridae (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks, and sorry I did not see that comment while I was in edit mode, where it is hard to read. (It's too bad we are saddled with Wikipedia's poor editing interface.) --doncram 18:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Further the RNZ International source itself mentions interview coverage in Nouvelles de Tahiti (a daily newspaper). Google Scholar search yields article "French Polynesia" by L. Gonschor in journal The Contemporary Pacific, 2011 - muse.jhu.edu with excerpts

... The race by two neo-traditional canoes to reach the 2010 Shanghai World Expo before its closing was won by neither team. One of the two canoes, O Tahiti Nui Freedom, reached Shanghai on November 22 after a voyage of 114 days. ...

and

... subsequently left the project. Gaining the support of Assembly Speaker Oscar Temaru, Ottino built his own canoe in record time and named it O Tahiti Nui Freedom, in tune with Temaru's political message. Both canoes were ...

And the end of the preceding article by Jon Tikivanotau [and?] M Jonassen in that journal (which appears for me in image/pageview of start of French Polynesia article, on second page here, includes coverage of other voyaging canoes:

Cook Islands Voyaging Society members assisted in constructing several sea-voyaging canoes (CIN, 18 July 2009). Two months later, double-hulled canoes Te Marumaru Atua (Cook Islands), Faafaite (Tahiti, French Polynesia), Uto ni Yalo (Fiji, Matua O Maui (Aotearoa), and Hine Moana (mixed nations: Samoa, Tonga and Vanuatu) arrived in Avana (CIN, 31 May 2010). A symbolic traditional stone-laying ceremony followed in honor of the five voyaging canoes that had sailed from New Zealand to Rarotonga (CIN, 2 June 2010).

In my view all of those "neo-traditional" voyaging canoes deserve coverage in a list-article (perhaps in a "neo-traditional" section of List of voyaging canoes, currently a red-link) and possibly also deserve separate articles. That last is an example of the kind of obligatory summary review of other voyages that I expect will be repeated in coverage of new ones, which is different than coverage centering on the O Tahiti Nui Freedom itself. 'CIN is Cook Island News, a daily newspaper in Rarotonga. CIN is one source that would probably cover O Tahiti Nui Freedom directly, too.
The full citation for the Gonschor article seems to be The Contemporary Pacific Vol. 24, No. 1, 2012 "Polynesia in Review: Issues and Events, 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011", by LORENZ GONSCHOR, MARGARET MUTU, FORREST WADE YOUNG and HAPAKUKE PIERRE LELEIVAI, pp. 172-206 Published by: University of Hawai'i Press, with stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23725690, Page Count: 35.
--doncram 18:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a model article is the Hokulea, a long-ish well-developed article about a 1975-built voyaging canoe, that has reliably sourced coverage of each of many voyages (including one where it capsized) from 1975 until now. It is still a bit dangerous, and it's always thrilling IMO, whenever one of these attempts an ocean voyage without instruments; every such trip is extraordinary and newsworthy IMO. The O Tahiti Nui Freedom canoe likely will garner coverage of many voyages during its lifetime, too, so the article will grow towards being like the Hokulea one, I expect.
But seeing the redlinks for other notable (IMO) voyaging canoes, if there is not a consensus to Keep this article outright, then perhaps moving this article to List of voyaging canoes and developing out that as a list would be a good step. (That would be a "Keep" decision also, technically, i think.) Alternatively, assuming the list-article should be created anyhow, this could be redirected to it (a "redirect" decision); either way there would exist a redirect and the edit history would be saved. If I have time I will start Draft:List of voyaging canoes as a draft which could be utilized one way or the other. I prefer either of the "Keep" variations. --doncram 19:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Doncram: Future expectations of coverage cannot be used as sourcing for an article due to WP:CRYSTAL. So the canoe may likely garner coverage of many voyages is not sufficient grounds for notability. I still have reservations whether the sources you've listed above constitute significant coverage since I don't have access to the Gonschor article. Yes, moving/redirecting is an option if the voyaging canoes taken together would form a valid list/article (they should mostly). Ciridae (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hokulea is a model article but it has undertaken multiple voyages, unlike this one. Ciridae (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep may not be as notable as the Kon-Tiki expedition, but it does appear to at least meet WP:GNG as a recreation of historial significance (too lazy to fix that grammar).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Loriendrew (talk • contribs) 18:05, 2 April 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll withdraw my nomination since there are better alternatives to deletion being discussed at this point. Ciridae (talk) 09:29, 3 April 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. Both sides have made plausible arguments in this discussion. While the "keep" votes are more numerous, when reading the discussion I found the "delete" votes to have generally stronger arguments that are based on Wikipedia policies. We must remember that Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion; simply saying that this meets WP:GNG without explaining how is not a particular strong argument. Also, I am annoyed by the incivility in this discussion; Wikipedia has often been said to be a hostile place which turns away prospective female editors, and this discussion only serves to perpetuate this problem. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 04:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brogan Hay[edit]

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

Contested PROD with no reason given. Subject fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. This is irrelevant however, as there is no indication whatsoever that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage in third party sources for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - WP:GNG criteria clearly met. WP:NFOOTY and its perpetually incomplete WP:FPL essay (as noted clearly at the top of the page) is largely irrelevant to women's top-division leagues around the world. Adequate references provided for WP:GNG criteria. Hmlarson (talk) 08:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless a viable solution for the top-division of women's football has been resolved and the conclusion declares that women playing in the top-level league in their country still aren't notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite the deliberately misleading claim above, WP:NFOOTY is entirely relevant here. The player does not play in a fully-professional league, so does not meet the criteria. @The Rambling Man: I'm not sure what you mean by a "viable solution"; I would be extremely uncomfortable with a double standard that said women playing in non fully-professional leagues are notable but men are not. Number 57 10:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally think that's bias against women's sports, especially when they receive coverage in notable third party reliable sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: Why is it bias? They are judged by the same criteria. The lack of professional women's leagues is because it is less popular as a spectator sport, meaning that the players themselves are less notable. If WSL players were deemed to be automatically notable and National League players not (despite playing in front of crowds almost twice the size), I would say that would be bias. Number 57 10:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a silly argument. Netball is less popular as a spectator sport. As is dressage. But that shouldn't mean we bias the coverage against those sports. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article needs some work, but definitely meets notability requirements. We should not be reinforcing Wikipedia's demonstrated systemic bias. VanEman (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @VanEman: There is no bias. Players are held to the same standards whether they are male or female. We also delete articles on male footballers in top divisions that are not fully professional (see these recent AfDs). Number 57 18:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to your opinion that there's no bias, but that's just your opinion. Just because a "standard" is applied equally doesn't make it a good standard. VanEman (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@VanEman: If a standard is applied equally, then by the very definition of the word, there is no bias... Number 57 18:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. If admissions to the Ivy League is based on height and the minimum standard is applied equally--you have to be six feet tall---that doesn't mean there is no bias. The standard is not a good one, and inappropriately eliminates what I think are appropriate candidates. Same here. I would argue that notability as an athlete is a matter of subjectivity, not a single rule. VanEman (talk) 19:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@VanEman: I think the height argument is a straw man – this is not a rule than naturally excludes women – there is nothing to stop women's football leagues being fully-professional, except the relative lack of interest compared to men's football – and it is this relative difference that affects the relative notability levels. A better comparison would be the WP:Politician guideline – i.e. that all MPs in national parliament are automatically deemed notable. This rule means more articles on male politicians are deemed automatically notable than for female politicians, as in almost all countries, there are more male MPs than female. However, this does not mean the rule itself is biased, it is simply a reflection of real life. Number 57 19:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You sound just like Ray Moore on women and men in tennis. I hear that his position is open now, so why don't you call Larry Ellison and tell him you'd like to apply for the gig.VanEman (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@VanEman: It's a shame you feel you have to bring the debate down to that level. If professional status is not the best indicator of notability for footballers, what do you suggest is? The only realistic alternative I have heard that doesn't include separate rules for men's and women's footballers (which would be biased) is to allow articles on all players in top divisions – however, this has been rejected on numerous occasions as it would mean we have articles on footballers who play in the top divisions of countries like Andorra and the Faroe Islands. Number 57 19:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree entirely that reliance on the list at WP:FPL is, and has been for a long time, nonsensical. And the only even remotely accurate alternative I can think of would be for a working group to go through every country in the world looking at players with varying ranges of appearances, seeing how many apps they needed in each league for most of them to meet WP:BIO, and drawing up a notable leagues list accordingly. And given the obvious systematic bias involved in availability of sources – in terms both of language and of ease of access – not to mention the unlikelihood of finding volunteers, I can't see that working. So we have to use WP:BIO.

    The sources currently in Ms Hay's article come nowhere near meeting the requirements of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", and I can't find anything to add to the article to get it closer to meeting those requirements. Namechecks, match reports, but very little of significance. If a page for a male under-age international were at AfD with a similar lack of non-trivial coverage, it'd have six or seven delete votes by now. If a page for a player in the not fully pro English National League or in the top-division but not fully pro League of Ireland were at AfD, it'd have to reach something approaching WP:GA standard before it'd be kept. The UK media doesn't cover women's football in any great detail, although it's improving. I'm not convinced how constructive it is to try to override WP:BIO for subjects that we think the media should be interested in but isn't. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - ignoring the WP:NFOOTBALL aspect here (which even the keepers say she fails!), this article fails WP:GNG as well. Non-notable, sorry. GiantSnowman 10:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm tired of the WP:BIAS and misogyny where we develop guidelines designed primarily by males to minimize the article for top female players compared to top male players. Plays in top division of football in Scotland. Nfitz (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nfitz: As you are aware, we delete numerous articles on male players in top divisions because they don't meet the criteria either. Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that the guideline was specifically designed to minimise the number of eligible female players? Also, it's a shame that we can't seem to get through a debate about a female footballer without accusations of misogyny, chauvinism etc; perhaps a new version of Godwin's law is required... Number 57 20:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence is clear, simply from the much larger number of article for current male footballers compared to females. The guidelines that let this happen are misogynistic. It's 2016 - just because the UK is backwards, doesn't mean we should be. Nfitz (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nfitz: There are more articles on male players because there are more professional male players. The same is the case for politicians because there are more male politicians. Regardless of what year this is, this is reality. Also, please withdraw your personal attack. Number 57 21:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've made no personal attack - though I really hadn't expected anyone to support misogyny in this day and age. There are many sports listed in WP:ATHLETE where we don't apply the "fully-professional" league rule, and allow for "professional" in other sports (such as Canadian and American football). If we are willing to have different rules for other types of football, then there's no reason we can't apply different rules for different genders. The concept of applying the same rules for female footballers as we do for male footballers is misogynistic - when we could choose to apply the rules for female footballers to be the same as American footballers. I don't think establishing the rules this way was in itself misogynistic - but failing to change it when the WP:BIAS is demonstrated, is misogynistic. Nfitz (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nfitz: You have accused editors of misogyny, and if you do not withdraw it, you will be reported at ANI. Applying the same rules to both genders is unbiased; having different rules would be biased. The fact is that fewer female footballers are notable because there is less interest in it as a spectator sport. This may reflect badly on society, but it is a fact. It would be grossly unfair to male footballers who play in semi-professional leagues to deny them an article when females in similar leagues are allowed them. Number 57 21:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have not accused any individual of misogyny; I'm not sure why you are distracting from the point. How do you justify that we can apply different rules to American Football, but can't apply those rules to Women's football. Yes, there is less interest in it as a spectators sport. But in other sports where there is less interest as a spectators sport, we only require that the league is profesional - not fully professional. That's where we are being misogynistic. Nfitz (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nfitz: Because they are different sports. This is the same sport. ANI report to follow shortly, I will notify you on your talk page. Number 57 22:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57:But with different genders. ANI report for what? I'm accusing us all of misogyny - myself included as I've gone along with this in the past. I've been just as much a misogynist on this as anyone. I've only just realised the implication, because we apply different standards for other male-dominated sports. I think you are misinterpreting my meaning here. Nfitz (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nfitz: Gender should not matter – notability of footballers is directly linked to interest in the sport. Number 57 22:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course gender matters. You are saying that a sport such as american football where we accept that because of the smaller player base, that it doesn't have to be fully-professional, but reject the same for Women's football based simply on gender? We need to fix this - it is clearly and blatantly wrong, and is WP:BIAS. Nfitz (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nfitz: On the contrary, I would say the bias is in the American Football guidelines. The size of the player base has no real impact on notability as far as I am aware. Number 57 22:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That was simply an example, that I chose going down the list of sports - and it's the first sport listed. There's certainly others. Ice hockey, Basketball, Cycling, Equestrian for example. We could very easily choose to change Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable. to men who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable; while women who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a professional league, will generally be regarded as notable to recognize the huge differences between the two sports. Nfitz (talk)
But what makes a female player in a semi-professional league notable when a male counterpart is not? Number 57 11:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's the highest level in the country, as in this case. Drmies (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: But, as demonstrated above, being the highest level in a country is not sufficient for male players either. Number 57 15:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that demonstrated and at any rate it really doesn't mean that much to me. I'm not arguing she passes FOOTY. "what makes a female player in a semi-professional league notable"--I don't take "notable" as "notable per FOOTY", I take it as "notable". I'm arguing FOOTY should be tweaked. If you want to really improve Wikipedia, get the experts together (including the keepers in this discussion, minus me, since I know very little) and tweak the guidelines so they reflect, more honestly and with less of a focus on "professional", the actual practice of sports, including women's participation in it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was in Struway's comments, but if you need actual links to AfDs, see these recent ones – all male players in top divisions. Number 57 15:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In my opinion she passes the GNG. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As earlier stated the system measures financial gain, not sports achievements. Professionalism is not only money, it's also how much you train, how the sport is organized. If a hugh sports like women's soccer ends up with just 1/2/3 leagues qualifying standards, than there has been an intellectual mistake.Funafuti1978 (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She seems to pass WP:GNG. SarahSV (talk) 00:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Her team has the reigning championship of Scottish Women's Premier League. WP:NFOOTBALL says Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable. She is notable. — Maile (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear Keep top division sports players, clearly reach WP:GNG. WP:FOOTY is broken if it doesn't account for the variable emphasis and coverage of Women's sports.Sadads (talk) 22:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with Sadads. WP:FOOTY is broken. WP:GNG is clear. — Cirt (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: see also related AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenna Fife. — Cirt (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the reasons in the related article. She doesn't pass WP:NFOOTY, which is the standard- it's not acceptable to use " I think WP:NFOOTY is stupid/wrong/biased" as a reason to keep this article. Some coverage, but I don't believe enough to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:GNG is (just about) met. WP:NFOOTY and WP:FPL are an embarrassment to their project and not fit for purpose. Bring back Regi Blinker (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:05, 8 April 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 as this frankly seems to only be going one path and it's been open since Saturday; also the fact this is from the earlier part of the past century, chances are this will need attention from archives (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Ahlin[edit]

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

Non-notable actor; fails WP:NACTOR Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 06:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - article quality is irrelevant. This actor is notable per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:32, 3 April 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  09:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Pilon[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 05:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: One of the thousands (I am not making that number up) of NN stub articles created by the infamous Dolovis, like many of the rest this is laden with sources and includes superficial accomplishments that seem noteworthy to the unpracticed eye. None meet the standards of WP:NHOCKEY (as Dolovis well knew, which is why he was community banned from new article creation), and the sources are all passing mentions or primary sources explicitly debarred from certifying notability by WP:ROUTINE. Fails NHOCKEY, fails the GNG. Ravenswing 06:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The May 17, 2015 article from NHL.com is substantive and about him, so should be considered significant, non-routine coverage. But notability requires multiple such sources so unless there are others deletion is appropriate. Rlendog (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not convincing of independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:14, 9 April 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  09:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ELI (film)[edit]

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

This film seems to exist, but I can't find any coverage in reliable sources for it. It claims to have won several awards, but I can't find any record of this, either. The awards are likely too minor to grant notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
some looking further:
director:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
star:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
awards:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
screenings:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete per failing WP:NF. Short films have it tough, for even if they win awards, such are usually at minor festivals. I gave it some attention, and while this one may have had some write-ups, I have been unable to find them. IF they ever come forth, we can always WP:REFUND the article. Schmidt, Michael Q. 08:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as simply not better convincing of any better notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:16, 9 April 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Mangiapane[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 05:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Whenever I see a stub article on a minor-league or amateur hockey player that claims the player won some minor honor, I think "Must be one of Dolovis'." In this case, as unfortunately usual, I'm right. While he's had a good junior career, it's WP:TOOSOON to know whether he'll achieve success in the pros. Fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence of meeting the GNG beyond routine sports coverage explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE. Ravenswing 20:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Fails GNG by ROUTINE coverage only (so far). If he sticks around he seems like a good deal WP:TOOSOON as a player on the Heat. Yosemiter (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as still questionable for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:22, 9 April 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tekmill[edit]

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

Singer with questionable notability-as a note the page was made earlier today by another new editor. Wgolf (talk) 04:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as I would've considered PROD but this may need G4 for the future and simply none of this suggests any better signs for notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - G4 does not apply in this case. I had tagged the earlier version for a G7 as per the AFD - which was created by Tekmill, who had himself authored the previous version of this article. Long and short, not only did the article not go through the full AFD process, it never should've gone to AFD to begin with. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is a promotional autobiography of a non-notable musician. The creator of this article (187Connections (talk · contribs)) and the creator of the article of the same name that was deleted (G7) just hours ago (Tekmillion (talk · contribs)) are apparently the same person. There is an nearly identical copy of the article on an earlier version of Tekmillion's user page. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 11:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Obvious autobiography, certainly not notable musician. Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per above commentary, this is promotional and the subject has no real notability at this time. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the author of the current version appears to be a single purpose account. No other articles besides this one have been edited or created by it at this time. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fromage 2004[edit]

Fromage 2004 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Show with questionable notability, see also Ed's Big Wham Bam Wgolf (talk) 03:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per G5 - Block evasion by Lolijij, who is obvious sock of Baddeck, Nova Scotia LTA.
Lolijij: "Hello I'm Lolijij I Want you could Stop Redirecting my Fromage 2004"
142.134.243.215: "Do not redirecting Fromage 2004 and Ed's Big Wham Bam", "Please stop redirecting my page on Wikipedia" IP geolocates to: Baddeck, Nova Scotia, Canada. Virtually all IP contributors to this article have been from Nova Scotia IPs.
This report indicates that the Baddeck, Nova Scotia editor has been disruptive since at least October 2015 and is de facto banned. Lolijij is flagged as suspected sock of LTA Maelbros, which I'm not sure is correct, (Maelbros tended to use IPs from France) but if it is, would warrant G5 speedy delete anyway. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt for good measure. There appear to be insufficient reliable sources discussing this particular episode of Fromage to meet the WP:TVSHOW or WP:GNG notability criteria, and there is the G5 issue as well. /wiae /tlk 05:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ed's Big Wham Bam[edit]

Ed's Big Wham Bam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

TV show with questionable notability. Keeps on getting redirected it seems also. Wgolf (talk) 03:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per G5 - Block evasion by Lolijij, who is obvious sock of Baddeck, Nova Scotia LTA.
Lolijij: "Hello I'm Lolijij I Want you could Stop Redirecting my Fromage 2004"
142.134.243.215: "Do not redirecting Fromage 2004 and Ed's Big Wham Bam", "Please stop redirecting my page on Wikipedia" IP geolocates to: Baddeck, Nova Scotia, Canada. Virtually all IP contributors to this article have been from Nova Scotia IPs.
This report indicates that the Baddeck, Nova Scotia editor has been disruptive since at least October 2015 and is de facto banned. Lolijij is flagged as suspected sock of LTA Maelbros, which I'm not sure is correct, (Maelbros tended to use IPs from France) but if it is, would warrant G5 speedy delete anyway. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Looks like a poorly done advertisement. Definitely delete.VanEman (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:12, 6 April 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 Ryanverse. Clear consensus against this existing as a stand-alone article. Less clear where things fall on the delete-redirect-merge spectrum. It looks like the amount of material in the target is already about the same as for the other presidents, so I'm going to call this a redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robby Jackson[edit]

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

This fictional has no WP:RS reliable sources which WP:V its general notability per the WP:GNG and WP:NFICT. Thus this subject is an unsuitable topic for a standalone article. AadaamS (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 02:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Checked books, news, and newspaper articles, but there is nothing exceptional about this character aside from just being part of Clancy's Jack Ryan universe. Even within that universe no significant analysis has been done about the character.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as above, there is no secondary source coverage on this character's individual importance. I'm amenable to a merge back to a character section in some main article, but it isn't necessary. czar 16:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Ryanverse now that a suitable series article exists. The character's WP coverage should be proportional to its RS coverage, if the character is used in several Clancy novels. czar 11:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Ryanverse. Here is a source I found about the subject:

    Garson, Helen S. (1996). Tom Clancy: A Critical Companion. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 83, 128. ISBN 0313295050. Retrieved 2016-04-08.

    The book notes:

    There are other characters in the book, mostly male, who play a role in Ryan's growing ability to defeat the Irish assassins. Quite deliberately, Clancy draws two totally opposite African-American men. One is navy pilot Robby Jackson, a superhero and a patriot, a devoted friend to Ryan, willing to risk his life for him. (Jackson has a role in several Clancy novels.) ...

    Another jarring linguistic note appears in the novel with the nickname given to Robby Jackson, an African American. "Spade," is painted on Jackson's plane so that people know it is "the CAG's bird" (304). Jackson also refers to himself as Spade when identifying himself to his men in flying. Again, one must wonder whether this is Clancy being humorous or tweaking the sensitivities of the reader by being the opposite of politically correct. Whatever the reason it does misfire.

    Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Secondary information notes: "Examples of useful information typically provided by secondary sources about the original work, or primary and secondary sources about information external to the work:".

    One example is "critical analysis of the work of fiction, including discussion of themes, style, motifs and genre". The discussion of "jarring linguistic note" regarding Robby Jackson's "Spade" nickname is useful secondary information.

    Cunard (talk) 06:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect as suggested and per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 19:50, 11 April 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Edward Franklin[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Rentier (talk) 01:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)I[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 4 April 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, G7. This never needed to go to AfD, really. —C.Fred (talk) 03:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tekmill[edit]

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

Wrong Information of the Artist Tekmillion (talk) 00:12, 2 April 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 with no subsequent "delete" !votes. VQuakr (talk) 06:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vinod Tiwari[edit]

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

The subject of this article does not appear to meet our applicable notability guideline at WP:BASIC. The sources provided in the article are all either trivial or connected to the subject. VQuakr (talk) 00:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm, this might be more complicated that it appears. A previous version of the article appears to be about a completely different and notable politician (an Uttar Pradesh legislator). All mention of this was removed by someone with an account bearing similarity to the subject's name, here. It seems likely that there is a second younger person with the same name editing the article autobiographically. VQuakr (talk) 00:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it should be retained now that it has been cleaned. If they are same persons than any changes must be backed with credible references. Pratikazamgarh (talk) 02:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the bio of the politician and trout the author who changed it. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:22, 2 April 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  19:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Puppy Channel[edit]

The Puppy Channel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
NN "cable channel" that appeared on only four local cable systems at its height (this fact, and which systems those were, are unconfirmed). Unsourced for years, and the largest coverage of the subject in reliable sources is a two-sentence bit in a HuffPo piece on ephemeral NN cable channels; that aside, the subject has a half-dozen fleeting namedrops of the sort explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE from supporting notability. There's a surviving webpage, but Wikipedia still isn't a web host.

The article was AfDed ten years ago, and survived on pure headcount of the threadbare Keep rationales so common back then: several Keep proponents proffered no grounds to keep at all, and those who did put forth telling arguments like "The nom must hate puppies," "Sooner or later someone will start one," "All small market cable channels are notable," "It's important" and the like. Unsurprisingly, the article's completely unimproved in the decade since the AfD. Fails the GNG and WP:ORG. Ravenswing 00:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I wasn't sure on this one. It's certainly an unusual concept, and there seem to be a number of non-trivial instances of coverage in newspapers and the like that might add up to significant coverage, for example here (originally from the Oakland Tribune). But I turned up an article from Broadcasting & Cable in 2005 with references to previous media coverage, suggesting that the Puppy Channel never actually operated and indeed placing it somewhere not far short of a hoax. It's already of dubious notability either way and that tips the balance firmly into "delete" territory for me, since it renders the rest of the non-trivial coverage unreliable. —Nizolan (talk) 01:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mm, good point: that the lack of any information about the local systems it allegedly was on casts doubt on the reliability of any of the coverage it might have received, if all they did was take the owner's word for it. Ravenswing 02:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as searches found nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 04:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:00, 10 April 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 Seraphimblade per WP:G12 and WP:G11. (non-admin closure) —Nizolan (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amrit Maan[edit]

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

Singer with questionable notability-the refs are questionable as well. The bio is very bias in how it is written, I am having trouble finding refs as I'm getting quite a few results for the name for different people Wgolf (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete G11 (entirely promotional, unsalvagable). So tagged. Went this route as this is entirely promotional of the subject. There's also some copyright violation issue in the article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:39, 2 April 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. ^ Moffat, A., (2006). Kelsae: A History of Kelso from Earliest Times. Birlinn Ltd. ISBN 1841584576
  2. ^ Moffat, A., (2006). Kelsae: A History of Kelso from Earliest Times. Birlinn Ltd. ISBN 1841584576
  3. ^ Moffat, A., (2006). Kelsae: A History of Kelso from Earliest Times. Birlinn Ltd. ISBN 1841584576
  4. ^ https://icis.corp.delaware.gov/Ecorp/EntitySearch/NameSearch.aspx
  5. ^ Moffat, A., (2006). Kelsae: A History of Kelso from Earliest Times. Birlinn Ltd. ISBN 1841584576
  6. ^ Yahoo Finance, http://markets.financialcontent.com/mi.miamiherald/news/read?GUID=31731899
  7. ^ Moffat, A., (2006). Kelsae: A History of Kelso from Earliest Times. Page 12. Birlinn Ltd. ISBN 1841584576
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_April_2&oldid=1142623871"