Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 15 June	17 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trade In Trade Up[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to exist now, and doesn't seem to have been notable when and/or if it did. JezGrove (talk) 23:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable on its best day. Defunct now. --Lockley (talk) 05:46, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FxPro[edit]

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

apparently promotional article with extensive contributions by now-banned editors DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam with no indications of notability or significance. Just (likely paid) WP:ADVOCACY. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam, advertising, advocacy, PR - it really doesn't matter what you want to call it, but I'll call it marketing. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:55, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree that a lot of it was promotional, but this has been cleaned up and the person responsible banned, the company is clearly notable with FX industry based on references and searches and I suggest we keep it but stub it back to remove promotional material. Sargdub (talk) 00:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above The number of ref's could give the mistaken impression of significant, in depth coverage-- but not. Does not meet GNG.Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the FxPro article - I just needed it, used it, it was helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VirginiaL (talk • contribs) 15:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! There's nothing there you cannot find on the corporate web page. The issue here is notability of the subject.Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have edited the article before. I found new references. I understand that some of the ones that are currently in the article should be removed. Could you see these references to see if the article can remain?

Http://www.icawards.co.uk/investment-awards-2010/ Forex investor of the year - Investors Chronicle Http://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/sport/watfordfc/watfordfcnews/15346988.Watford_seal__largest_sponsorship_deal_in_club_history__with_FXPro/ Http://www.financemagnates.com/forex/brokers/fxpro-announces-launch-of-supertrader-platform-for-copy-trading-available-initially-through-one-entity/ Http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/fxpro-unveils-a-ground-breaking-strategy-building-tool-512444851.html Https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/fxpro-ctrader/id838925664?Mt = 8 Http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/12155078/FXPro-holds-off-flotation-plan-on-market-chaos.html Https://www.forexfraud.com/forex-broker-reviews/fxpro-review.html If they seem appropriate, I would arrange the new text in a neutral and non-promotional way Mcmikhedoff 11:20, 23 Juin 2017, UTC

Comment Note that there is an open job on Upwork offering cash for saving this article [1]. Rentier (talk) 11:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rentier: Never seen the like. Post to WP:AN Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Posted to WP:COIN. Rentier (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think they may just about cross the notability threshold. Added some recent developments to the article. Some have been mentioned above and should qualify. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 13:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not the issue here (though I'm not seeing it). We strongly discourage COI editing; the only practical way we have of doing that is to undo COI edits. Here the COI apparently goes right back to the first version. Nuke it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only in-depth coverage in a WP:RS reliable source is one Daily Telegraph article [2], and it's about FxPro deciding not to try an IPO. John Nagle (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I`m not a paid editor, I'm part of the company. And I published a project in Upwork to get advice on how to make our contribution so that the article is not deleted. I point it out clearly in the text of the project in Upwork, I´m not looking for a promotional text, I want to comply with all Wikipedia rules, that is why I have not touched the text, I have looked for new references and I have proposed them here, and I have also proposed contributing with the text. Thanks to the editor who took two references that I contributed to improve the article. If there is any way on how can proceed with the page so that it stays live - please let me know. Mcmikhedoff (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Pratapgarh lynching[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Notability#Events. Looks like a usual news-event to me. I see problem with WP:GNG. Yes, one man died because of lynching by Muncipality employees. And it got some coverage in media. But what is that so notable to have an encyclopedia article for this? Neither the motive, nor the aftermath has any notable worth. Tyler Durden (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:NORUSH. I'm not sure exactly whether or not this article should be kept but it's worth noting that this is still being covered in the media four days later which might satisfy WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE but only time will tell. There was also a five-day sit-in following the incident. The WP:VICTIM was a notable social media activist, which might garner some need for an article, but I don't live in India so I'm not sure how notable he really was. Kamalthebest (talk) 08:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violation of WP:SYNTH, WP:OR to make this subject look any notable. Finally WP:NOTNEWS. Capitals00 (talk) 08:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a no brainer. Google news already has over 1000 news items devoted to this. The Hindu nationalist chief minister of Rajasthan has moreover made it more newsworthy by tweeting controversially notable things after the murder of a Muslim Indian man in Pratapgarh. It is related to another major problem in north India: open defecation. I don't need to go on. The AfD is a waste of time. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Continued coverage. Also, this is a lynching by "municipal officials", something that is most certainly notable. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 21:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vicoustic[edit]

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

Non notable company; references are all press releases, made by sock of prolific COI editor. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:PROMO cited to press releases or otherwise non independent coverage. WP:CORPDEPTH not met and generally spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as non-notable and very plainly promotional in intent. --Lockley (talk) 05:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. I kept looking for an assertion of significance, but was always struck by the promotional nature of the thing. Little original to add to what's gone before.Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cyfuture[edit]

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

Obvious promotional article, with major contributions by editors listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amitabhaitc DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the tags from 2016 speak volumes-- press release and advert. The numerous ref's in no way indicate significant, in depth coverage. Does not meet GNG-- a craftily created promo piece.Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. I've removed the corporate spam, puffery and unnecessary details from the article. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely, It is the promotion of a company.Wikibaji (talk) 05:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. Light2021 (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I had previously closed this as a merge. However on examination of the article I note that there is not a single citation anywhere in the article and thus there is nothing that can be merged per WP:V. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Highfolk[edit]

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

This fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Flanaess. BOZ (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is one of many fictional subdivisions of fictional settings for D&D. It is trivial. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just link to what I said on the Land of Geoff, since this nomination for deletion is on the same subject for the same reason. Merge with Flanaess. Borderlandor (talk) 05:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete merge and redirect to Flanaess. Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ and WP:ATD-M. Jclemens (talk) 04:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John "Kat" Brooks[edit]

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

Brief, minimally-sourced bio of a drum tech only notable for being injured during Dimebag Darrell's death. Fails WP:BLP1E and WP:NMUSIC. 2006 AfD resulted in no consensus largely based on a "keep" rationale that didn't take into account above policies or WP:LOTSOFGHITS. Furthermore, the killer himself was deemed non-notable, making Brooks' notability stemming from the incident less convincing. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 19:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Textbook BLP1E. A low profile individual (by his own insistence) who gets reliable source coverage as a survivor of the event. There is almost no biographical depth. • Gene93k (talk) 05:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per aboveDlohcierekim (talk) 06:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clearly fails WP:GNG. AuthorAuthor (talk) 08:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW - he is a good musician and a brave man, but just not notable. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 00:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Virtually identical to the previously deleted version MelanieN (talk) 03:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coverfox[edit]

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

A great many references, every one of them an apparent press release, in sources notorious for publishing such material. Extensive contributions by now-banned sockpuppet -- see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amitabhaitc DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- same as the first AfD in 2016; could this be "speedy deleted" as a recreation of previously deleted material? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom Will tag for G4.Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smartron[edit]

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

A great many references, every one of them an apparent press release, in sources notorious for publishing such material. Created by now-banned sockpuppet -- see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amitabhaitc DGG ( talk ) 19:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced commercial blurb. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
delete promo puff sourced from promo puff. lacks significant coverage I reliable sources w/ rep for fact checking.Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to add, I removed all puffery and unnecessary details. Wikipedia is not a marketing or advocacy platform, nor is it a substitute for a company's own website. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. I didn't realize it was currently linked to from the main page. Therefore closing per WP:SKCRIT # 6. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of international goals scored by Landon Donovan[edit]

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

Wikipedia is a WP:WIAE. This article is just not WP:NOTE. Rævhuld (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rævhuld: Really? While the list is featured on the Main Page? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speed keep (as creator) per previous discussion, this FL is notable in that Donovan still holds the all-time topscorer record for the United States, a major country in the world of international soccer, and there are multiple reliable sources that refer to his record and this list. Once Clint Dempsey achieves the record, the list will still be notable, as it was a long-running record, and both records have been covered by reliable sources (Washington Post; NY Times; Sports Illustrated). Sounder Bruce 20:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But you have omitted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international goals scored by Sergio Agüero (2nd nomination), which did delete it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The difference is that Aguero has never been the all-time top scorer for his country. Longstanding consensus is that these lists are valid where a player has held such a record..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for obvious reasons. Notability clearly established above and I suggest closure per WP:SNOW. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep The fact that the list made it through FLC and onto the front page means that the list has already proven its notability before.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 20:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep Per longstanding consensus at WP:FOOTY. S.A. Julio (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep since linked from the main page. This is point 6 at WP:SKCRIT. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is long established that lists of this nature are deemed notable, and unlikely to have made it through FLC if not a notable topic. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - these types of list have been established as notable when the player has held the record for their respective country. Not to mention that it is a FL and made it through that process with no issues. Kosack (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is important with such lists, the lede makes the argument for the notability and justification for the list. Seems very clear that this is done. Koncorde (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability established through various references and Wikipedia processes. Hmlarson (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. HandsomeFella (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy/Snow Keep I support deleting this article on the merits, but not while it's on the front page. An admin should close this now. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Murrian[edit]

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

Seemingly NN photographer failing WP:BIO and WP:GNG. That his photographs have been published in no way satisfies any of WP:ARTIST criteria. Failed WP:CSD#A7. Toddst1 (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as non-notable. This is promotional. --Lockley (talk) 05:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete does not meet GNG. Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Fails all criterias of WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google News gives: No results found for "Richard Murrian". If there subject were notable, one would expect at least something, however crappy. Mduvekot (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not seeing evidence of sources counting towards GNG in a quick Google search. The article also is deficient in this regard. Carrite (talk) 13:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as argued above. -- Hoary (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Candidates in the New Zealand general election 2017 by electorate. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:14, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bala Beeram[edit]

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

There's a general election round the corner and whenever that happens, bios of wannabe politicians appear that fail WP:GNG. The New Zealand politics work group has a holding area for draft bios in project space, and this is where the page got moved to, but the SPA who created this article has moved it back into article space. The next course of action is thus to put this bio up for deletion. Schwede 66 18:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Candidates in the New Zealand general election 2017 by electorate. Candidate currently does not meet the WP:BLP requirements for a politician, but that may change after September's election. Ajf773 (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect until National's list is released (August sometime I think) and then reassess. Kiwichris (talk) 09:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:14, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Leffman[edit]

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

Local politicians who have failed to secure election to their national legislature are not inherently notable, nor are administrative office holders in major political parties. Her participation in the 2016 Witney by-election is not sufficient to meet WP:GNG, nor is any other criteria for notability met. Maswimelleu (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons above. The recent deletion of the article for George Turner, also an unsuccessful Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate, is a precedent to delete. Her other work is not hugely notable and can be mentioned in the constituency article if willed. Matt 190417 (talk) 11:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails GNG. Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. --RaviC (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Village at Manalapan[edit]

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

This proposal went through a wide variety of ideas during its lifetime, but as of last year the project was scrapped and the land is in the works to become a pig farm. While the project did receive local press attention during project's 13 years of planning and discussions, I'd challenge the lasting notability of a project that never came close to actually getting built. Proposed development projects regularly receive local press attention, and I don't see anything lasting or special about this former project. Slon02 (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was also a 2012 solar farm installation. Very selective, as is in, one-line merge of content on the proposed development to Manalapan Township, New Jersey, with a reference. I suppose we could also categorize the redirect under Category:Unbuilt buildings and structures in the United States, too....? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if built, it may not have been notable. But as a proposal, with apparently just some routine local coverage of planning issues in the local paper, I would not even mention it in the Manalapan article. MB 01:46, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was a flash in the pan that has burned out in its entirety. There is nothing here of enduring notability. Alansohn (talk) 04:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails GNG. Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Redmond[edit]

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

A7 quality article that has no coverage in reliable sources and makes no claim to significance. I am taking to AfD to sort out if this should be redirected. She has a notable grandfather and great-grandfather, but neither of these is near close enough a connection to be worth a redirect, and even if they were. I also strongly believe that living people should not be directed to other biographies generally, since they have no control over the content of the other biography, though that's lessened in this case since both of the possible targets are dead. Ultimately, redirecting serves no purpose here and there are valid reasons to delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the claim about her grandfather appears to be unsourced, and is irrelevant in any case. The references appear to be mainly trivial mentions of her in the context of magazine pieces on her clients. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails GNG. Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Krawchuk[edit]

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

Perennial political candidate with little success or impact even at the local level. He gets some mentions in the press, but not the depth that we would expect for a living person. This article was likely created to help raise his profile for the 2018 PA governors race that he is also exceedingly likely to lose. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The court's previously struck down a rule that made third parties by financial penalties, which has been a big factor in limiting 3rd parties there - since it means that they get bullied into withdrawing (http://www.allgov.com/news/controversies/court-rules-minor-political-parties-may-fight-law-that-makes-them-pay-legal-costs-of-major-party-lawsuits-against-them-140715?news=853686, http://www.mcall.com/news/local/elections/mc-pa-ballot-access-lawsuit-20160701-story.html). 41% of national voters think "Government" is the problem, and there's a distrust of both the Democrats and Republicans. Only 32% of voters say Trump is doing a good or excellent job, and 52% believe the state is off track, and only 38% of voters say that Gov Wolf is doing a good job (https://www.fandm.edu/uploads/files/56099588469302664-f-m-poll-release-february-2017.pdf). Edward Clifford who ran for US Senate in the 2016 PA election got almost 4% of the vote (https://ballotpedia.org/Edward_Clifford_III). Given that turnouts tend to be only about 35%, Krawchuk could be able to win if he gets about 15% of the registered voters to vote - so it would be mostly about turnout. Especially now since he won't be liable to financial penalties - and the rise of social media compared to previous elections may help as well since many voters are turning against the two big parties. Swil999 (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania. There appears to be recent consensus to keep these types of candidates as redirects. He obviously doesn't meet WP:NPOL and I see no other claim of independent notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails GNG. Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni:

Disclosure: I am the acting manager for Ken Krawchuk's campaign for Pennsylvania Governor

Ken Krawchuk had a record setting number of votes for all Pennsylvania Libertarian Gubernatorial Candidates in his 2002 campaign. (https://www.lppa.org/libpenn/libpenn_2003_winter.pdf) During this campaign he appeared in 2 nationally televised debates. (https://www.c-span.org/video/?172744-1/pennsylvania-gubernatorial-debate)

Ken Krawchuk also received the Libertarian nomination for Pennsylvania Governor in 2014. (http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/02/ken-krawchuk-wins-libertarian-gubernatorial-nomination-in-pennsylvania/) (http://triblive.com/politics/politicalheadlines/5639231-74/krawchuk-party-signatures)

Ken Krawchuk has been a member of Toastmasters International since 1997, achieving his Distinguished Toastmaster award in 2006. In 2008 he also received the District's prestigious John E. Foster DTM Achievement Award for his service to Toastmasters. (http://tmdistrict38.org/PDF/District%2038_%20Sept%202014%20Newsletter.pdf) Toastmasters International is a global organization with over 345,000 members. (https://www.toastmasters.org/leadership-central/statistics-and-data-hub) Ken has consistently won awards and contests for his speeches. (http://www.tmdistrict38.org/Famehall/Contest-TT.xls)

Ken Krawchuk has been a computer programer since 1970 and holds 3 U.S. patents in that field.U.S. Patent numbers (5,418,942), (5,564,119), and (5,564,119) titled “ System and Method for Managing and Storing Information” (https://www.usa.gov/federal-agencies/u-s-patent-and-trademark-office)

(https://www.google.com/patents/US5564119?dq=5,564,119&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjCxIra5MjUAhUKWD4KHYHDC7AQ6AEIJDAA) (https://www.google.com/patents/US5960437?dq=5,418,942&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwifxPHX5cjUAhVKOj4KHd6qD24Q6AEITjAG#forward-citations) These patents have been referenced over 150 times.

Marcbozz (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you're putting article content in the AfD, but OK. We did read the article itself. The foregoing does not show the subject meeting the WP:GNG.Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se; if you cannot demonstrate and reliably source that they were already eligible for one independently of being a candidate, then they have to win the election, not just have their name on the ballot, to get a Wikipedia article out of it. But nothing claimed here (either in the article or in his campaign manager's spiel above) demonstrates preexisting notability, and almost exactly none of the sources being shown (either in the article or in his campaign manager's spiel above) constitute reliable source coverage about him in media. Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform for unelected candidates' campaign brochures — we keep articles about holders of notable political offices, not non-winning candidates for them. (And just for the record, don't even try to respond to that statement with the "but Hillary Clinton lost and she still has an article" argument, the way some people do; she may have lost the presidential race, but she did hold notable offices prior to running for president and already had an article on those grounds before she had even entered a presidential primary, so she's not a comparable situation.) Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suspect she (for want of some other words that would cause problems) met the GNG before holding political office. Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taro Prasarnkarn[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails GNG. Looks A7 to meDlohcierekim (talk) 07:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both criteria Spiderone 20:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UTIM[edit]

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

I am not able to find any sources about this subject. I may be a neologism or slang. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 14:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and possibly speedy; article is written in a promotional way and without sources. No sources found; a possible hoax. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails GNG. looks G3ishDlohcierekim (talk) 07:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree, the acronym for Universidad Tecnológica de Izúcar de Matamoros seems more popular (and does not have an article?)

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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ariane M[edit]

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

Unsourced speculation on a rocket which was never seriously considered. No coverage in any WP:RS I could find (search for "Ariane M" rocket -wikipedia). Misleading readers as to existence of this project. — JFG ^talk 14:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete -- unsourced WP:CRYSTAL. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, technically it was mentioned in a 1991 study of possible future launchers. Never went further, though, and I couldn't find any RS commenting on the project. Not historically significant enough to deserve an article. — JFG ^talk 17:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Shevanesh[edit]

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

Searches turned up not a single in-depth source on this person. Very promotional article, created either by the subject themselves, or someone representing the subject (see editor's username: Johan official12). Tagged back in April, have waited several months in hopes it might be improved. While additions have been made, no attempts to address the issues with the article, including notability, have occurred. Fails WP:GNG, and even if notability could be shown, the article should be deleted as purely advertising. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 14:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- WP:PROMO and does not pass WP:BIO. FITINDIA 14:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails GNG. Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no doubt that this musician is well-known and beloved locally, but I don't see any real significant coverage. A quick online search found a single (exactly one) reliable news source about this person, while we require multiple sources, especially for biographies of living persons. Please ping me if anyone finds better sources. Bearian (talk) 00:14, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rated people[edit]

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

Poorly sourced, mainly to their own website, non notable and written like an advert. Theroadislong (talk) 12:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 14:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 14:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 14:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can't find any third party sources that fails GNG and NWEB overall. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 15:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as self-cited spam, with copy such as: "Their aim is to inspire homeowners to create a home they love, by removing the stress of finding quality local tradespeople!" K.e.coffman (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails GNG. not quite G11Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete indeed, seems just advertising for a local service, not notable (yet?). W Nowicki (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems to be a UK version of Angie's List. Footnotes showing not sufficient for a GNG pass and running down the first 100 responses of a Google query generated zero sources counting towards GNG. The number of Google hits indicates that there is a possibility of several sound sources being out there, however, so ping me if anybody actually finds them and I will flip my recoomendation on this piece. Carrite (talk) 13:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abdolreza Akbari[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, can only find self-published sources. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 12:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete COI SPA promoting his/her non-notable family. Cabayi (talk) 14:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails GNG. promo coi Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - locally known, and no doubt good based on his number of roles, but he fails WP:NACTOR due to lack of significant roles. Bearian (talk) 00:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Srinath Rajendran film[edit]

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

Non notable movie. Has not yet begun principal photography and therefore fails WP:NFILM. Was only announced yesterday. so this is way too soon to have an article. Jupitus Smart 12:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 12:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 12:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy delete. A page for a film which hasn't even been named yet? Bakilas (talk) 12:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well technically there are pages for movies which haven't been named yet. Untitled Sanjay Dutt biopic, Untitled Han Solo film, Vijay 61 are some examples. So that by itself won't be a reason, though I do agree that it could have been a speedy delete candidate - the chances of an admin rejecting due the references regarding the announcement of the movie, was what prompted me to take it to AfD (and to let the new editor who created this know exactly why the article will be deleted instead of giving him confusing acronyms like A7).Jupitus Smart 13:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fair point raised by Jupitus, changed to delete due to reasons as listed below by Fitindia. Bakilas (talk) 08:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM it's probably WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTALBALL. FITINDIA 14:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As this projected project can be sourced,[3][4] it can be written of in it's director's article. THAT'S where it can be spoken of until it finally meets criteria for planned films. Author, go read TOOSOON. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Nordic[edit]

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

Speedy declined as not unambiguous advertising. Facts stated are all trivia. Company registered their trademark. Partner joined. Nothing but routine. Sources are all primary, with one exception: http://www.di.se/artiklar/2007/1/3/noteringsfest-vantas-2007/ a trivial mention from the Stockholm Stock Exchange. Promotional garbage like "a vital cornerstone for the company's onward growth". Main contributor has an undisclosed COI. Mduvekot (talk) 12:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the company only has 40 employees and is listed on a non-major stock exchange, it isn't notable that way. I've removed the worst promotional material, but it's still not notable, and the nom is correct that the article is mostly trivia. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Can anyone find more reliable sources? A quick search gave me nothing, but that could be because of the name of the company. We can hardly build an article based on the sources presented right now. /Julle (talk) 11:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails GNG. KINDA PROMODlohcierekim (talk) 07:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I can see how i might have a COI this page was created solely to get the company on Wikipedia. So people could look it up and see through it's history, not for any marketing purposes. The New Nordic sources used to create the article is something they've released at an earlier date with all the information the public should want or need about them, but seeing as it's not available everywhere it was taken to Wikipedia. AdamScharff (talk) 09:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AdamScharf: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We really do not want to serve as a platform for corporate information. We need sources that are reliable, with a reputation for fact checking, and completely unrelated to the subject. Obviously the page was created to get the company on Wikipedia. The subject does not meet or general notability guideline.. "Not available elsewhere" is exactly my point. And, of course it has a promotional tone as it is sourced from the subject.Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have not found any independent reliable sources that discuss the company. If someone with a COI tells us the only information anyone would want or need to know about the company comes from the company itself and can't find any independent sources that is a good WP:BEFORE. ~ GB fan 10:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. I've removed puffery and unnecessary details too. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheat Code Central[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Can't find any reliable source that talks about the website itself. Also the page was possibly created by someone at Cheat Code Central, User:Mmccc. Would be seen as advertising. GamerPro64 01:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails GNG. Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even significant coverage from those mid-90s Internet directories... There might be stuff in old, print PC mags, but nothing that I can ascertain. czar 07:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Villency[edit]

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

Not notable. Much of the content dates back to the very first edit, which is suspiciously promotional in tone. Ori Livneh (talk) 05:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of an article for Villency Design Group is pretty damning, in my opinion. It's very rare for a person to be notable as chief executive officer of a company that itself has not been deemed notable. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG as the subject of multiple pieces of coverage independently published and of presumed reliability. When Inc. magazine is seeking his fashion opinions and the New York Times is covering his marriage as a social event, dude is notable. Carrite (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sources aren't convincing. Some of them are written by him. - TheMagnificentist 10:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Despite relists there is no consensus whether the cited sources confer notability, slightly favoring such notability. Merging or redirecting can be discussed at the talk page if needed. So Why 07:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ayaz Nizami[edit]

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

some sources are not notable enough. fails WP:GNG. received some press coverage but they doesn't makes the subject notable enough to warrant an entry on WP. Saqib (talk) 11:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Ayaz Nizami is the Raif Badawi of Pakistan. After Nizami was arrested news of the situation went viral; at one point #hangayaznizami was the #1 trending twitter topic in Pakistan, displaying the level of religious fundamentalism to the world. After the hashtag trended twitter was cricised for allowing a directly violent hashtag to trend. Not just in "focused" news sources, but large newspapers with readers around the world like the Daily Mail.(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-4345364/Pakistani-police-prevent-clerics-rally-against-blasphemy.html)--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail is no more a credible source. Merely getting press coverage for single event doesn't makes a person notable. --Saqib (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He satisfies the definition of "prisoner of conscience." Most Prisoner of conscience have articles. Not just his arrest got press coverage, but the following incidents related got press coverage too (Rally by clerics, hashtag, etc) Multiple incidents of press coverage. Not only press coverage news of him had large social media presence. There were protests after his arrest (for and against), from Pakistan to Norway. Other notable sources from major newspapers;

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2017-03-24/pakistan-more-bloggers-charged-clerics-rally-blocked http://92newshd.tv/two-arrested-disseminating-blasphemous-content-objectionable-literature-seized/ http://www.atimes.com/article/hangayaznizami-comes-caving-clerical-rule/ http://video.genfb.com/1374723449253219 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/pakistani-christians-islam-lynching-trial-muslims-convert-youhanabad-lahore-church-bombings-a7659721.html http://nation.com.pk/national/24-Mar-2017/blasphemy-crackdown-fia-arrests-2-suspects-from-karachi --PlanespotterA320 (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't feel the subject quite breaches the WP:GNG currently. What we're looking at are a number of inadmissible sources (Daily Mail, Ummat.net, a self-published blog, and the subject's own website) mixed in with reliable sources which only mention the subject in passing. There isn't sustained coverage actually exploring the subject of the article in-depth. The fact that his name might appear in articles about broader topics in the Independent, the Nation, et al. doesn't qualify. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about the Hindustan times? Whole article. [5] chicago tribune [6] and iheu [7] Given the rather large online presence and prominence as one of the few open athiests living in Pakistan, as well as the international reaction, isn't that notable? He used many aliases, if you can't find much notable under one name, search under another and more comes up. (Ex, allama ayaz nizami...)PlanespotterA320 (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect he's not notable on his own; the only references in credible sources are of the "3 charged with blasphemy" type. If there's a suitable redirect page, I support keeping a redirect. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no suitable redirect page: I created this article because the name "Ayaz Nizami" was in red links on several different articles.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel Blasphemy_law_in_Pakistan#Selected_cases is minimally acceptable, but not a great option. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, I cannot see Ayaz Nizami links to several different articles as you claim. As of now the page links to only 3 articles. --Saqib (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There were red links on Blasphemy law in Pakistan, List of former Muslims, Irreligion in Pakistan.PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google News Search yielded lots of hits from reliable secondary sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Markhor (brand)[edit]

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

cited sources are not notable enuogh. fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) Saqib (talk) 11:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is a well written stub which has adequate citations for its size. Daylen (talk) 04:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the cited sources are not credible/reliable. --Saqib (talk) 10:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Having actually looked through the sources, I don't see a problem. Yes, a couple of them aren't ideal such as the Kickstarter page, but that is backed up by another source to support rather than it being the sole source. There are articles about the company, the founding process, their business practices. It looks fine to me. I also quickly scanned through Google News and other results, and I'm still not worried. Mabalu (talk) 10:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a WP:PROMO page for an unremarkable private company. Coverage is routine and what's to be expected on a company actively promoting itself. This content can just as effectively be housed on the company's web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails GNG. more promo puff. no clear assertion of significance. Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've seen their advertising elsewhere. They do it better where it belongs--they don't need it here. The WSJ article is an acceptable source,but nothing else here is. DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Care Anywhere[edit]

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

Promotionalism that has not and probably cannot be fixed: 1/The comparison with uber--see WP:EINSTEIN 2/ wordings like "at any time between 8am and 10 pm to suit their convenience, whether they are in the UK or abroad" 3/the claim to 100,000 members-- does this means people in plans for which this serves as a backup, people who have ever paid the fee, or people who regularly pay the fee, or people who have used the service. 4/the extraordinary claim of delivering prescriptions worldwide -- each country has local laws relevant to this--I know it's in the source, but it indicates to me the source is unreliable 5/but especially the last paragraph which is essentially intended to show the need for the company--it does not--it rather implies the need for companies such as this, of which there are many, There is no statement of the actual financials or contracting physicians or number of services provided. And there's one essential thing missing: the corporate website. DGG ( talk ) 08:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 11:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 11:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These statements are all provided by independent reputable sources. The company's claims are not presented uncritically. More criticism would improve the article. The survey is not presented as saying anything about the need for the company. It's there because the company commissioned it.Rathfelder (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to meet notablity criteria and references supplied are adequate and reasonable sources. Recent/edits have improved it. It does still read slightly like an advert still in places, but not enough to warrant deletion. However, definitely could warrant with further revisions by the original author and others to make it more encyclopaedic. LordHarris 22:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam; strictly promotional. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~marginal keep~~ delete I cleaned it up as much as possible - removed press releases and clear churnalism refs and unencyclopedic language. I think it just squeaks by. Jytdog (talk) 06:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC) (NB - not enough left, per note below. changed !vote. Jytdog (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that the article was significantly copy edited on 10 June 2017, after the first relisting of this discussion, to address concerns with promotionalism. @DGG, Rathfelder, LordHarris, and K.e.coffman: pinging participants in this discussion, who may not be aware of these recent significant changes that have occurred.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:DGG as the nom, what do you think of the article now? If it still is not appropriate in your view, that would swing my vote. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yes, the promotionalism has been removed. But, as I predicted, that removed so much of the material that there is not enough left for an article. The references are essentially press releases or mentions. The article is curently saying "it exists". DGG ( talk ) 21:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unchanged -- still promotionalism (an exec was "honoured") & routine news announcements. Just a private company going about its business. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails GNG.Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The stub is much better than before. Their work is laudatory. However, I'm not convinced this version yet meets the standard for rescues. Even the added articles are local in scope. Please ping me if a further attempt is made to save this one. Bearian (talk) 00:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Claudio Galluzzo[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable academic, 2 cites on Scholar; apparently teaches at Polimoda, an unrecognised fashion school in Florence – though without any footnotes there is really no way of knowing if that, or anything else here, is true. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional blurb. Sources insignificant. No pass of WP:Prof or WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Do Not Delete Sources are significant, credible and plural. Maybe some points could be revised but not deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.11.23.90 (talk) )
delete fails GNG. Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete How can be erased somebody with so many important references? Have a look below:

Academic: http://www.aadfi.it/?accademico=galluzzo-andrea-claudio Industry: http://archivio.gonews.it/articolo_215195_Confindustria-labbigliamento-guidato-da-Andrea-Claudio-Galluzzo-Con-lui-anche-Thes-Tziveli-da-Empoli.html Politics: http://www.unita.tv/focus/lintervento-di-daniele-claudio-galluzzo/ Sports: http://www.gonews.it/2015/03/17/andrea-claudio-galluzzo-e-il-nuovo-presidente-della-societa-italiana-di-storia-dello-sport/ Sports: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACF_Fiorentina Sports: http://wwwext.comune.fi.it/comune/partecip/museo_calcio.htm Awards: http://www.coni.it/it/coni/concorso-letterario-e-racconto-sportivo/tutti-i-vincitori/vincitori-concorsi-letterari.html Teacher: https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=European_School_of_Economics - http://www.uniese.it/news-ed-eventi/managing-human-resources.html - https://www.google.it/search?q=european+school+of+economics+andrea+galluzzo&rlz=1C1GGGE_itIT592DE596&oq=european+school+of+economics+andrea+galluzzo&aqs=chrome..69i57.6616j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Teacher: How can someone affirm that Plimoda is not a recognized school as it is ranked in the top 10 of the world? https://www.businessoffashion.com/education/rankings/2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.11.23.90 (talk) 19:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please only one !vote per !voter.Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Zdrok[edit]

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

Blp1e - notable only for her divorce and subsequent legal battles, fails pornbio. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable porn actress, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 16:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per sources provided by Morbidthoughts - Notability is most certainly there so keep. –Davey2010^Talk 12:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Ummn she's more notable for being a model and a frequently quoted therapist than a divorce as made clear by [8][9][10][11][12][13] Was there an attempt to follow WP:BEFORE before nominating? Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In light of new sources.....
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- "a frequently quoted therapist" is not a sufficient claim to notability; we'd need sources about the subject to meet WP:SIGCOV not what they say in the medial. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please. What you are requiring contravenes WP:ACADEMIC criteria #7 and WP:BIO under Academics. Reliable sources about the subject then, [14][15][[16][17][18], even if the coverage isn't exactly tasteful. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1994. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wouldn't the fact that she was selected as 2004 Penthouse Pet of the Year, etc. meet WP:PORNBIO? - GretLomborg (talk) 04:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've not seen Pet of the Year used as a qualifying award under PORNBIO. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Possible notability on many fronts. I disagree that this individual is only notable due to their divorce. @GretLomborg: While we don't have an article on every Penthouse Pet of the Year, I know we have an article for most Playboy Playmate of the Year (~40/60) and at least a section for them in their respective years within playmate of the month lists (~20/60). — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Berkovitz[edit]

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

no evidence for notability as an individual DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable as a business person given the sustained coverage over the years.--JumpLike23 (talk) 04:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

his only notability is in founding one relatively minor company; everythign else is just fluff. That does not justify a separate article DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The standard we are considering is the GNG, and the test is whether "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, then it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article." Here, Berkovitz received extensive coverage when he founded DoMyStuff.com (The San Diego Union-Tribune, St. Paul Pioneer Press, San Francisco Chronicle, Esquire (magazine), Entrepreneur (magazine)). Moreover, he has received coverage for Telesign and Strong Webmail (Los Angeles Times, CIO magazine, PC World). He's mentioned by The Mercury News as representative of Silicon Valley. --JumpLike23 (talk) 05:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article creator seems to have confused WP:GOOGLEHITS with actual sources. So where are these reliable sources with extensive coverage? Because they're not in the article. More actual evidence and less handwaving, please. --Calton | Talk 13:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a glorified CV filled with trivia about a $10,000 contest to break into his account. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Slavic Native Faith organisations[edit]

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

List of marginal Slavic neopagan organizations. Only two of which have articles. Wikipedia not directory. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the starter of the article (which I cut out from the main article about Slavic Native Faith), at the moment I am unsure about what is the best solution. Just consider that, Wikipedia has many similar lists of organisations, and many of these lists have no sources. See for instance the list of organisations campaigning for population stabilisation, list of organisations in wuxia fiction, etc. The "list of Slavic Native Faith organisations", instead, uses academic sources which mention the listed organisations, many of which are not marginal at all (some are officially registered by a government).--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 09:13, 3 June 2017 (UTC) Do not delete but redirect to the main article Slavic Native Faith, with possibility of a merger of the list as a table.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 07:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - GNG pass from sources showing but needs a renaming to List of Slavic pagan organizations. Carrite (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert B. Charles[edit]

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

This page is a naked self-promotion exercise about a living person whose career is not notable enough to merit a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.236.219.147 (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the nomination for the IP. ansh 666 21:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: wikipedia is not LinkedIn. And the section: "Management style: Also known as a reform-minded manager, he effectively transformed a two-billion dollar bureau at State, between 2003 and 2005" -- what the what? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been around since 2004. Rsw1022 notes connection with subject in change history. Passes WP:POLITICIAN. Subject is notable. The article should be kept. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Agree with nominator. Google and ProQuest searches are not turning up in-depth coverage of the article subject in multiple reliable secondary sources. Article is also written in an inappropriately promotional tone. Citobun (talk) 13:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing my standards for lawyers. He clerked for a major court, served as ASOS, and was partner in a well-known law firm. Normal editing will cut out the cruft. Bearian (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Pyraminx Duo. (non-admin closure) - TheMagnificentist 18:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pyraminx Diamond[edit]

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

Not apparently a variation of Pyraminx Duo - see this edit comment. No evidence of notability for this unsourced toy. PamD 22:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Skewb?: Pinging the editor whose edit summary I mentioned above. PamD 21:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pyraminx Duo. It appears to be a similar toy, and I'm not sure the discussion of whether it's actually a variant or not is actually relevant. I see no independent notability, but plenty of non-independent (stores, etc.) sources to demonstrate that it really exists. Jclemens (talk) 03:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Negros in America[edit]

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

Contested PROD. No indication this meets WP:NFILM. One source is an archived link to "newsjounal.com" (sic) which appears to be nothing but spam for the film's creator presented as fake news. The other two are both WP:PRIMARY. No other sources found Grayfell (talk) 08:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:44, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:NFILM fail; a short film "written, produced, and directed by Jason Innocent" who is barely notable himself. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability with incredibly poor sourcing. Anarchyte (work | talk) 15:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Better Bathrooms[edit]

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

This page was pointed out to me by a competitor who is trying to get his own page approved. This page fails WP:CORPDEPTH. It has three sources - one profile of the owner, and two PR distribution sources. It seems that a company with "eight showrooms/trade counters based in England as of February 2015" and only founded in 2001 when the owner started selling taps on ebay, is unlikely to generate enough independent in depth coverage to warrent an article. Legacypac (talk) 08:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The EliteBusiness interview with the owner is the best of the references, and I am not finding anything better than routine announcements and passing mention. Enough to verify this as a retailer going about its business, but not to demonstrate encyclopaedic notability. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per sources: ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]^[13]^[14]^[15]^[16]^[17]^[18]^[19]^[20]

List of sources

References

^ "The average bedtime routine for toddlers takes over 90 mins". Voice Online. 30 May 2017. Retrieved 16 June 2017.
^ King, Diana (1 June 2017). "Average toddler bedtime routine in UK takes an hour and a half". West Sussex County Times. Retrieved 16 June 2017.
^ Begum, Shelina (11 July 2016). "Better Bathrooms announces 100 new jobs after strong sales growth". Manchester Evening News. Retrieved 16 June 2017.
^ Ord, Matthew (27 January 2017). "Better Bathrooms to create 100 jobs with BGF backing". Insider Media Ltd. Retrieved 16 June 2017.
^ Begum, Shelina (24 December 2015). "Better Bathrooms opens largest showroom in Birmingham". Manchester Evening News. Retrieved 16 June 2017.
^ Armstrong, Ashley (18 October 2014). "Wolseley eyes return to retail with Better Bathrooms". Telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved 16 June 2017.
^ SCHUTTE, SHANÉ (26 June 2015). "The UK's fastest growing private companies: Hot 100 2015 – (44) Better Bathrooms - Real Business". Real Business. Retrieved 16 June 2017.
^ Jupp, Adam (10 June 2015). "Better Bathrooms appoints Lee Ellis as finance director". Manchester Evening News. Retrieved 16 June 2017.
^ Graham, Natalie (29 May 2015). "My First Million — Colin Stevens". Financial Times. Retrieved 16 June 2017.
^ Everett, Adam (11 November 2015). "Retailer scoops top award with David Cameron in attendance". Warrington Guardian. Retrieved 16 June 2017.
^ Bradshaw, Louisa (11 November 2015). "Better Bathrooms Named Employer of the Year". Bdaily Business News. Retrieved 16 June 2017.
^ Stephen, Phyllis (21 September 2015). "Edinburgh now has Better Bathrooms". www.theedinburghreporter.co.uk. Retrieved 16 June 2017.
^ FOUND, NICHOLAS (8 November 2016). "Data: The top 30 retailers by the proportion of online sales". Retail Week. Retrieved 16 June 2017.
^ Bradshaw, Louisa (10 June 2015). "Better Bathrooms appoint Lee Ellis as Finance Director". Bdaily Business News. Retrieved 16 June 2017.
^ Begum, Shelina (10 April 2017). "The Wythenshawe lad who built an £85m company". Manchester Evening News. Retrieved 16 June 2017.
^ Pescod, Adam (8 July 2013). "Better Bathrooms wins £10m investment from Business Growth Fund - Elite Business Magazine". Elite Business Magazine. Retrieved 16 June 2017.
^ Bradshaw, Louisa (24 June 2015). "Better Bathrooms Opens A New Showroom In Cardiff". Bdaily Business News. Retrieved 16 June 2017.
^ Begum, Shelina (6 June 2014). "Better Bathroom opens fifth showroom". Manchester Evening News. Retrieved 16 June 2017.
^ "Better Bathrooms extends Palletways contract - Logistics Manager". Logistics Manager. 29 May 2015. Retrieved 16 June 2017.
^ Lobel, Ben (14 November 2016). "Business Growth Fund reaches £1bn invested in UK companies". Growth Business. Retrieved 16 June 2017.

The list can go on and on and on however you get the point and I'm nextremely surprised no one above has found any of this however regardless of that the article subject meets CORDEPTH as well as GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 13:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Davey2010 seeing as how you went to the trouble of posting all those links, it is only fair to respond. I'll start by saying that the criteria for establishing notability is different than the criteria for establishing facts. You need to pay particular attention to WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND and look for "intellectually independent" secondary and third party sources that provide in-depth information on the company. Also, I won't comment individually on the sources but FYI some of these publications would also fail the "intellectually independent" test as they are either small regional publications or they are industry-specific that rely on advertising (from companies like this one). With that in mind...

Fails WP:ORGIND as the survey was carried out by the company (complete with quote from the CEO). It's basically a press release. There's not even any analysis or commentary on the company and the company data/facts were released as part of the "survey".
Fails WP:ORGIND for the same reasons.
Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. It's a regurgitated company announcement, no analysis whatsoever, not independent.
Fails for exactly the same reasons. Also, since BGF is an investor, it is not independent.
Fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is simply a routine announcement of opening a new showroom provided by the company along with photo of the CEO and quotes from company officers.
In my opinion, this one in the Daily Telegraph meets the criteria. It is independent and provides relatively in-depth information and facts on the company.
Fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is inclusion in a list of similar companies. Fails WP:ORGIND as the facts/data were provided by the company.
Fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is a routine announcement of hiring.
Fails WP:ORGIND as it is an interview with the CEO and not independent
Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND as it is not intellectually independent and the facts are provided by the company
Fails for the same reason.
Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND as it is a company announcement and the facts/data is provided by the company complete with quotations
Fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is inclusion in a list of similar companies, no in depth analysis.
Fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is a routine announcement of hiring.
Fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it simply one mention in a different article. Not in-depth, etc.
Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND as it is not intellectually independent and the facts are provided by the company complete with photo and quotes.
Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND as it is a company announcement about opening a showroom and the facts/data is provided by the company complete with quotations
Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND as it is a company announcement about opening a showroom and the facts/data is provided by the company complete with quotations
Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND as it is a company announcement complete with photo and quotes from the company
Fails WP:CORPDEPTH since the company is mentioned in passing.

So our of that lot, in my opinion, we have one source that meets the criteria for establishing notability. We need one more. I can't find another - that company was very good at announcements and PR and generated a lot of "noise" but nothing substantial in terms of coverage as far as I can see. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Having relooked at the sources as well as read CORDEPTH this does indeed fail the latter (As noted by HighKing there's only one source out of 20 that's indepth!), Better off deleted to be honest, –Davey2010^Talk 17:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the sources listed and available are routine announcements, store openings and related news. Do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Just a company going about its business. This content can just as effectively be housed on the company web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, promotion piece. Fails WP:Corp and should be flushed. Kierzek (talk) 14:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Howard (baseball)[edit]

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

Promising multi-sport athlete at the high school and college level that never made it to the big leagues. Existing coverage is minimal. Pichpich (talk) 23:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NBASE and WP:GNG. — Quasar G. 16:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NBASE and WP:GNG – Muboshgu (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mumsi Meets a Lion[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage and the author doesn't have an article. SL93 (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NBOOK. If only there was a literary equivalent of WP:A9, then we could've got this over with much more quickly. — Quasar G. 16:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete' - this does not appear to be a very famous children's book, and if we are not careful, there could be attempts to get just about every children's book ever published in Wikipedia. The title character is not a famous character from children's literature. Vorbee (talk) 08:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NBOOK with no reviews or any other real notice. The synopsis is a word-for-word copy from Victory Baptist Press. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for drawing to our attention the similarity with the Victory Baptist Press Summary - the summary on this sight does say "Mumsi's village in Kenya" and the Wikipedia article deleted "in Kenya" but apart from that the similarity almost makes the overview section in Mumsi Meets a Lion a work of plagiarism. So thank you again for this observation. Vorbee (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I may have got things the wrong way around there - it is in the Wikipedia article where the phrase "in Kenya" appears. Vorbee (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the author not having an article is not a reason for deletion, not meeting WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK is, also possible COPYVIO is a concern. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That isn't my rationale for deleting it. I only mentioned it because it is a likely indicator of non-notability. SL93 (talk) 06:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Derby Mountain Rescue Team[edit]

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

Local rescue team. No general significance. Speedy A7 was declined DGG ( talk ) 22:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article created by probably COI account. Clear fail of WP:ORGCRITE and WP:ORGDEPTH. AusLondonder (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails GNG. Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:14, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Casa & Nova[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAND, most references are own sources or Commons, and the remaining references don't prove any notability. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry that most references are own sources. I've tried to link other websites where the informations can be found (like the official Nomination for the Hollywood Music in Media Awards), but there are missing scripts on their website. Example. I've got the same problem with the references about their collaboration with FL Studio/ Faze Magazin. The links are always broken because Ampya is creating a new website Example. Is there any another solution for this problem? Firewheel911 (talk) 09:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. I don't see evidence that this group meets Wikipedia notability criteria, and an internet search isn't coming up with in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. Citobun (talk) 12:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. - TheMagnificentist 20:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I have reverted my earlier merge close after a closer examination of the article. There is not a single citation anywhere and thus nothing to merge per WP:V. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paddington Bear's Gold Record[edit]

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

I brought this here because I was not entirely sure if it should be speedied for a lack of a notable musical artist. There's a total lack in coverage; in fact the marmalade gets more sources and probably tastes better! TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The lack of a notable recording artist, or even a credited recording artist, would not be a problem if the album met the notability criteria for albums, but it doesn't seem to. The article's writing style seems somewhat opinionated, with comments such as "The voice talent recruited for this album is fitting and effective. ... Paddington belts out the final tune to this unknown gem of a recording", and made me wonder whether the article might have been copied from another source, but I haven't found any such source. It may be preferable to mention the existence of this album in the Paddington Bear article rather than having a separate article for the album. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Paddington Bear, per Metropolitan 90. It's nothing more than a piece of trivia that this record exists. ↅ𝜞 _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 12:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Israel[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. Fails WP:GNG and doesn't seem to meet any subject-specific guideline. With text like "world-renowned", this is likely some sort of autobiography. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This artist fails our notability guideline for artists. He got a brief burst of press attention regarding a painting he did of Donald Trump, but that coverage focused on the legalities of a charitable donation, not on this artist. Another Michael Israel has more press coverage. He was an American killed while fighting against ISIS in Syria. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Comparing yourself with Picasso is strictly forbidden. ^[Humor] No sustained critical attention, no substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources. Mduvekot (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) - TheMagnificentist 18:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jason John Beebe[edit]

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

Non-notable actor lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - star of a cult film. Bearian (talk) 00:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Keep votes don't seem to be heavily based on policy/guidelines and did not effectively refute the assertion by the deletionist comments that the subject failed GNG and NHOCKEY. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bojan Janković[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is another page for Bogdan Janković. Primefac (talk) 20:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet GNG or NHOCKEY.18abruce (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep player is listed on eliteprospects ice hockey database with full bio other info. link: http://www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=40973 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurohockisupreme (talk • contribs) 12:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a reason to Keep, that is purely routine coverage, which does nothing to establish notability.18abruce (talk) 00:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a reason to keep. Guy played for his National team multiple times, played in top level in Slovenian league "Slohokej". For me thats more than enough...compared to me and you who sit in chair and comment he represeted his county...enough to for notability my friend! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.250.35.162 (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still absolutely irrelevent to the discussion, but if you are proud of him that is good. WP:NHOCKEY is for players who play in leagues who are likely to get extensive coverage, or for national team players who play at the top level. He satisfies neither.18abruce (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss whether it can be verified that he played for the national team
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SoWhy: For what purpose? It is clear from various databases that he played for his national team, but that is irrelevent. Either GNG needs to be verified (good luck), or NHOCKEY (which is a clear no).18abruce (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete complete GNG fail and they never played at any level to get anywhere near meeting NHOCKEY. Deadman137 (talk) 04:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The once source provided is an interview from the local coverage after winning a low-level league championship, the very definition of routine coverage and suitable for indicating notability for GNG. Other searches turned up much the same (but I will admit my Serbian is not exactly perfect for such a thing). Definitely fails NHOCKEY, playing for the national team does not matter unless it is for the world championship (top-level only), not a world championship (Div. I, Div II, etc.) which is just for promotion/relegation purposes. Yosemiter (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep judging on previous comments I have to say...didnt play top division? are you guys serious? check nhockey rules...plus he played top level slovenian championship (and yes slovenia does play olypmics) and won title...plus multiple champinoships for his national team. But it seems that community think its irrelevent...hahaha to me it looks like this serbian sportsman is being under discrimination...bad bad and very sad

Hello single purpose IP, please provide sources for your assertion of notability. This player never played in the Olympics nor the top level of the Ice Hockey World Championships (the only level that plays for The World Championship). Playing against players (such as Slovenians) that have made the Olympics does not make someone notable. (I can play rec-league game against a notable NHL player, but that does not make me notable). Yosemiter (talk) 15:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Twice relisted with no participation, it's time to move on. I'm treating this as a de-facto expired Prod. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chege Chigunda[edit]

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

Could only find the subject's music download links and passing mentions which isn't enough to meet WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tanzania-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 18:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Duplessie[edit]

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

Minor American actor and would-be entrepreneur. Not even close to meeting WP:GNG. Calton | Talk 15:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of the article, I felt I should address these concerns. Would-be entrepreneurs are thousands of people who put their apps on Google Store and hope they succeed. However, Tipster app has been a success, as shown by the sources. Duplessie is a bona fide entrepreneur, and a successful one at that. Still, I don't think every successful entrepreneur should be in an encyclopedia. I wrote about him because he didn't create a run-of-the-mill app, but something original and innovative, which attracted the attention of the media, not to mention hundreds of thousands of users. Maybe I should rewrite the article to make this clearer? I agree with the other concern. He is a minor actor, and his acting alone would not earn him a place in Wikipedia. His claim to fame is Tipster. But I believe the article should include his acting too. --ArmoredCat (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two things: 1) Notability isn't automatically inherited. Merely creating a popular app -- if he did: is he a programmer, too? -- means nothing by itself. Is there an article on the creator of Flappy Bird? 2) I see no evidence that Tipster is a successful, popular, noteworthy and/or groundbreaking app. All sources in the article about it say, really, is that a) it exists and b) a C-list celebrity is associated with it. How, exactly, did you come by your information about this app being "successful"? --Calton | Talk 13:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the inheritance link. It looks like a complicated issue. Your opinion that creating a popular app means nothing seems a little extreme to me, considering the competition in that area... That's why every 1st-league soccer player can have a Wiki page - many try and few succeed... The app has 100,000 followers on Instagram, a source in the article says so. And I remember reading it has more than a million users, but TBH, I can't remember where I read it. Anyway, I see the logic of your reasoning, but aren't you interpreting the rules a little too strictly?--ArmoredCat (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a complicated issue. It's not the least bit complicated: this is supposed to be biography of someone, so sources about a company he's associated with is irelevant.
And speaking of irrelevant: the app isn't even notable in the first place -- the number of downloads, even if true, is irrelevant to establishing notability -- you don't even have THAT leg to stand on. --Calton | Talk 07:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet GNG in and of himself, regardless of the state of play with his app. Cut and dried there, and certainly not complicated. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a CEO of a nn Tipster app is hardly a claim to notability (the article on the company has been recently deleted). Just WP:ADVOCACY for an unremarkable entrepreneur. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MCX Raptor[edit]

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

Non-notable motorcycle by an equally obscure company in the Philippines. Apart from a scant mention or two from a press release, nothing substantial has been written about the subject. Blake Gripling (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear notable, only reference is primary and even then isn't a cited reference (just in the External links section). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication that either the product or the company is notable. The article and associated links simply indicate existence. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Only one vote (delete) but this has been twice relisted so it's time to move on. I'm calling this a delete but a damned weak one. If not for a challenged Prod it would be a "soft delete." If anyone has any serious heartburn over this drop me a line on my talk page and we can discuss it. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Daffy[edit]

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

Mostly primary sources and IMDb (not a reliable source) to establish notability. Does not pass WP:CREATIVE. None of the included sources establish why he is notable. Coderzombie (talk) 12:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. He's an animator who, not surprisingly, hasn't received much press notice. His most significant achievement, apparently, is the opening sequence of Die Another Day. He's not up there with Disney's Nine Old Men. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Willing to undelete if the participating IP comes back with sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Zare Mehrjardi[edit]

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

Not notable worthy of article. Written in CV style Sulaimandaud (talk) 07:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Much work done but on;y 26 cites on GS. Fails WP:Prof, WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep I know the guy as a recognized educator among Iranian, Indian, Egyptian, Russian, Saudi Arabian and some other countries' radiologists.5.209.205.46 (talk) 11:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)6|talk]]) 11:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC).— 5.209.205.46 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

If you know this you will be able to produce some sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 5.209.205.46 (talk) 11:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Neukrug[edit]

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

Résumé-like WP:BLP of a writer and psychologist, whose only discernible claim of notability for either endeavour is that he exists. This is based entirely on primary sources and GoodReads, with no evidence of reliable source coverage about him shown at all. As always, every writer is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because he exists -- a claim of notability that satisfies WP:AUTHOR, and the reliable source coverage needed to clear WP:GNG for it, are both required for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage, nor notable work, nor notability; also per nominator. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel DiPiazza[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer and entrepreneur, whose only evident claim of notability for either endeavour is that he exists. As written, this is based almost entirely on primary sources -- three of the six "sources" are directories of his writing on the websites of publications he's written for, one is his company's own self-published website about itself, and one is the Amazon.com sales page of his book. But a person gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of the sources, not the bylined author of them -- there's only one source shown here that constitutes a reliable source, but one source is not enough to claim a WP:GNG pass all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam, with copy such as: "...entrepreneur, author, and public speaker. He currently operates Rich20Something.com...". Wikipedia is not a sales prospectus for booking speaking gigs. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SupaCrankIt[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Despite claims of producing/working with notable artists, I can find no sources to support this and no coverage in news sources, books or elsewhere. In fact, looking at the sources included in the article, they fail to mention him in relation to any of the names. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete – Not finding any coverage in reliable sources at this time; does not meet WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quebec Connection[edit]

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

After an extensive online search, I found one album review for this group, and one upcoming event announcement. The two albums appear to be the only ones released from ProtoMusik Records. !earshot campus radio charts are not among those listed as notable and reliable Wikipedia:Record charts, although they aren't on the to-be-avoided list either. The listing at CBC Music appears to be a self-created profile (there are 47,000 of these on the site). —Anne Delong (talk) 11:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm actually the original creator here, long ago at a time (2006) when Wikipedia's inclusion and sourcing requirements were a lot looser than they are today — at one time, charting on earshot was enough and the one Exclaim! review could carry GNG. But earshot has since been deprecated as a WP:BADCHART because it's not IFPI-certified, one album review in one publication isn't enough by itself to pass NMUSIC #1 anymore, and they really don't have anything better that can be added to get this back up to 2017 standards of notability or sourceability. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aron (singer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Non reliable and trivial mentions in non independent sources. No reliable and independent sources are found about this newbie. No notable awards etc. The article is also very promotional and contains huge number of external links to his YouTube channel. Mar11 (talk) 14:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 14:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 14:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 14:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 14:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:I think he satisfies the first criteria(Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.) of WP:MUSICBIO.

Allkpop, soompi and kpopstarz are reliable and large website. Some examples of the subject of articles/ news is Aron

Allkpop

Soompi

kpopstarz

Also, the external link I added are the music video from different artists and Aron does not belong to them so I do not promote his YouTube channel. Since adding those link is acceptable and common is other language edition Wiki. I translated the article from zh wiki and had confused the rule. If it is not acceptable in Eng Wiki, I will remove the links.Cpcam065099 (talk) 18:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Cpcam065099 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Delete - I went through all sources again - most are Allkpop/Soompi considered unreliable WP:KO/RS - other references are trivial mentions of the group and give no weight to notability as an individual. Evaders99 (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I had removed all unreliable sources. Do it still have another problems?Cpcam065099 (talk) 06:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is entirely dependent on NU'EST. His work outside of the group is minimal and trivial; it does not warrant a separate article. ℯ xplicit 04:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss whether to merge/redirect to NU'EST per WP:MUSICBIO
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do he has the notability as lyricists? According to WP:MUSICBIO#Criteria for composers and lyricists, Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition. Aron Has credit for co-writing the lyrics for the song of NU'EST which is notable.Cpcam065099 (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And, the source examples of kpopstarz I mentioned are independent on NU'EST. Although The article title includes NU'EST, it is more concrete to describe him as many people has same name. The news focused on Aron and just mentioned NU'EST in small portion or none. Multiple reliable sources exist so Subject meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. I had seen other kpop star article. Some just have 2-3 sources so I guess it is acceptable to define multiple in this number.

Besides, I want to ask why the procedure did not meet Wikipedia:Notability#Articles_not_satisfying_the_notability_guidelines?Cpcam065099 (talk) 08:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Trivial, short news like "Aaron Escaped A Broadcasting Accident", "Aron injures thigh muscle during showcase rehearsal" etc. does not make someone notable. Co-writting a few songs for his own band is not notable neither. Snowflake91 (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There still have other long and non-trivial sources. News:NU'EST Aron Apologizes for Sexist Comments NU'EST Aron Apologizes Again for Sexist Comments After First Attempt is Deemed Insincere and Sarcastic 뉴이스트 아론, 데뷔 후 첫 라디오 DJ 도전장 뉴이스트 아론, 단독DJ 데뷔 100일..'인기 쑥쑥' NU'EST アロン、DJデビュー1周年！全世界どこでも聴けるK-POP伝道師として活躍中！ Magazine:NU’EST　もっと知りたい！５人の魅力～アロン前篇～NU’EST　もっと知りたい！５人の魅力～アロン後篇～NU’EST個人インタビュー：5人の王子さまの素顔って？～アロン編①～NU’EST個人インタビュー：5人の王子さまの素顔って？～アロン編②～

Is it not acceptable to add controversy part in wiki? I has seen in other articles but you deleted my edit.Cpcam065099 (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss new links and again whether to redirect to the band's article
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can't see how the article establishes notability independent of his band. Sionk (talk) 22:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Absolutely, positively, NO notability outside of NU'EST. Tibbydibby (talk) 02:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Into NU'EST article as subject is clearly associated with that band and not notable outside it . Not sure why others have not suggested this? YouTooNow (talk) 05:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This discussion primarily hinged on whether WP:MUSIC#10 was enough to overcome WP:GNG. The discussion was made complicated by pfahstrom finding it neccessary to reply to everyone who disagreed with them which made it hard to distinguish the true level of participation here. In addition, the nominator has nominated many articles in this category en masse which makes it difficult to know how much effort was put into their nomination. Ultimately, though, I lean on User:Nihonjoe's comment which is the strongest keep argument made and I find it to be solid but weak. It hasn't swayed any of the other three !delete participants afterwards. The consensus leans to delete. v/r - T P 13:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Future World Music[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Keep~~ (more complete vote reasoning added below.) [EDIT:] Added four independent sources, and I argue the article satisfies WP:MUSIC criteria #10, which for the purposes of the genre of trailer music I interpret to include appearances in multiple trailers for independently notable films. [OLD INFO:]and someone find some good sources. (I'm not volunteering.) A song from Future World Music came up in my movie soundtracks Pandora station today, so I came to look it up on Wikipedia and the article told me exactly what I wanted to know. Music featured worldwide in trailers of notable films is itself notable as far as I'm concerned. Also, the article creator on the talk page claims not to be associated with the company, but just a fan of trailer music. I believe the article was created in good faith. —pfahlstrom (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I went in and added two LA Times citations after all. —pfahlstrom (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you. I looked at the references you added. Your first reference is a blog post and this is normally not considered for the purposes of establishing notability as blogs are "self-published" sources and not subject to editorial review. It also only mentioned FWM in passing. Your second reference is also not much good as the only real reference to FWM is a quote from a company officer and therefore fails WP:ORGIND. Also, FYI, multiple references from the same source are considered a single source. Multiple sources are required to establish notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you look closely, you'll see that the LA Times Blogs article is essentially an extra news article by the same person as the LA Times print article of the same date, containing information that was deemed too long to fit in the print version of the article. It's an online extension of the article, not a personal self-published blog: It is published by the LA Times.

Also, the print article does contain a "real reference" in the article's subtitle: "Two Steps From Hell, Future World Music, Audiomachine and other companies specialize in scoring for previews." Article author Emily Rome is completely independent from the subject: She has written many articles for the LA Times on many different topics. Anyway, I also added a source from Trailer Music News, which focuses on this subgenre of music. And two sources from print books.

I also argue that for the purposes of this subgenre of music, appearances in multiple trailers for independently notable films satisfies WP:MUSIC criteria #10. —pfahlstrom (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Your opinion/argument that the LA Times Blogs article is essentially an extra news article doesn't sway me. It's still a blog post. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 22:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. Completely unreferenced article. Wikipedia is not a marketing platform. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The text of HighKing's vote does not take into consideration changes in the article that were implemented in direct response to the issues raised. —pfahlstrom (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reiterate My !vote is Delete. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. Wikipedia is not a marketing platform. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 22:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Doing a quick search, and no independant references come up. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did you read the discussion above, as well as the current article, and see that there are now four independent references cited in the article? —pfahlstrom (talk) 17:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep. The "Their movie trailer music is proudly commercial" article definitely qualifies as more than passing coverage and helps toward establishing notability. The blog entry from Rome is only a passing mention and wouldn't help toward establishing notability. The interview on Trailer Music News is a weak help toward establishing notability. I found an article on a Greek gaming news site about groups they would like to see composing game music, and FWM was discussed for a section of the article. I don't know Greek, so someone would have to help establish if this contributes toward notability. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I also agree with Pfahlstrom regarding WP:MUSICBIO#C10, and combined with what I indicated above, I think that makes it a solid Keep. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on above claim. WP:MUSICBIO#C10 is about notable productions. The films are notable, that does not extend to the trailer. Future World Music did not "performed music for a work of media that is notable". They built a library that was part of was later used for promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trailer Music does not get any special treatment. it is just another "genre". duffbeerforme (talk) 12:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Trailers for notable films are discussed in multiple reliable and notable sources at the time they are released (as in this USA Today article), making the trailers themselves notable. And "performed music for a work of media" is just another way of saying "recorded music and then had that recording featured in a work of media." —pfahlstrom (talk) 19:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Delete -- WP:PROMO on an unremarkable private business. The sources are passing mentions, interviews or otherwise not suitable for establishing notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete MUSICBIO only makes the claim that the subject may be notable, not that the subject is notable. GNG really must be met. The subject does not meet GNG as only one article is present, and no additional articles can be found, that discuss the subject at length. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Today I extensively rewrote this article in order to attempt to address the WP:PROMO concerns and follow more of a WP:NPOV. I invite other voters to view the current article's state. And here are my arguments for why the article should be kept.

The two Emily Rome articles for the LA Times, published on the same day, together constitute the most notable reliable source. The articles discuss the genre of trailer music, using the examples of four prominent production studios working in the genre, including Future World Music.
There is extensive ongoing coverage of Future World Music over numerous years in the musical sub-culture publication Trailer Music News, with multiple citations in the article. Most of these articles are written by a single editor, but two are by other writers for the publication. This is not as compelling a source as the LA Times, but I would count the articles in aggregate as a single source. It also meets a criterion in WP:NMUSIC, discussed below.
I have added more critical information from Lecturer in Music at the University of Leeds Ian Sapiro's book cited in the article. Trailer music is not a focus of the book, but the coverage on these two pages is more than a passing reference as he explains Future World Music's business model and includes detailed timings for how their music is used in the Stardust trailer. Therefore, I consider this to be an additional reliable source.
Furthermore, there are three guidelines from WP:NMUSIC that I believe relevant to this discussion. Now, WP:NMUSIC states, "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. Rather, these are rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is listed at articles for deletion." I choose to consider these criteria as rules of thumb to inform this discussion.
1. Criterion #1 under WP:NMUSIC#Others says: "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable music sub-culture." This criterion is satisfied by the Music Trailer News coverage as discussed above. Trailer music is a musical sub-culture, and I cannot find a publication that focuses on this sub-culture more prominently than Trailer Music News does. Now, trailer music admittedly does not have much of a following outside the sub-culture, but it has been deemed notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. I consider this criterion satisfied.
2. WP:NMUSIC#C7 says: "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." The third clause I have addressed above when talking about multiple sources. The second clause about a local scene of a city does not apply in this case. The first clause is the one that is relevant: Emily Rome's article focusing on four prominent trailer music production companies includes Future World Music. Therefore, I consider this criterion satisfied.
3. WP:NMUSIC#C10 says: "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E for further clarifications)"

First I address that caveat: This is not the "only claim" because of the other claims previously mentioned, and the multiple cited appearances in different trailers. Now, the applicability of the bulk of this claim is more debatable than the prior two, since their music has appeared in the trailers rather than the films. However, as Future World Music's genre is precisely trailer music, having that music be used in prominent trailers fulfills the spirit of this criterion. Indeed, music is more prominent within a trailer than a film, taking up a much higher percentage of the total running time, making it more noticeable. It was argued above that trailers are not notable, but I responded that trailers often prompt the publication of news articles upon their release, such as the USA Today article I mentioned.

"Has performed music for a work of media that is notable" I thus deem satisfied. Note that the criterion gives the example of performing music in a film, of which one interpretation would be that the film shows video of the performers playing the song, but this is not the only interpretation that would fulfill the criterion.

The aggregate of all of these arguments is why I believe the article should be kept. —pfahlstrom (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nope, WP:MUSIC only applies to musicians and composers. This is a company/organization and as such, needs to meet different criteria. My !vote is still to Delete because not only does it fail to meet WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG, the article is still marketing and Wikipedia is not a marketing or advocacy platform. I also removed all the puffery in relation to the "CEO". -- HighKing⁺⁺ 22:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Future World Music is essentially the stage name of musician and composer Armen Hambar. He has no presence outside of Future World Music, and Future World Music's releases are all produced by him and nearly all composed by him (though you removed that information from the article). Hambar and Future World Music are one and the same. Removing this information from the article loses important context.

Perhaps the article should be written with more of a focus on Hambar rather than his company. Something like "Armen Hambar is a composer, producer, and synthesizer musician focusing on trailer music, released under the name of his production company, Future World Music." ? —pfahlstrom (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Make a choice. Either dump this article and write one for Armen Hambar or keep this article but stop turning it into an article on Hambar. Notability is not inherited or conferred, each must stand alone. Because this article is about FWM, then it must be notable in its own right and not by "borrowing" or "leaning" on Hambar. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rules of Deception[edit]

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

The series was never produced. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 07:28, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not rise to the level of notable. Failed series, article is mostly in-universe prose. Lacks sources.--v/r - T P 13:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deeksha Center for Learning PU College (DCFL)[edit]

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

Notability concerns with this article. Article also reads like an advert in its current form. Mistbreeze (talk) 07:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, just another pre-university/junior college (11th and 12th standards). Somebody might invoke WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, this college doesnt fit the "almost all of them are de facto notable" criteria. I added the name of this college to List of institutions of higher education in Bangalore, with one government source. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete basically a non-notable private coaching centre for entrance exams. Lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources, fails WP:GNG, fails WP:CORP. --Bejnar (talk) 02:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss whether a redirect to List of institutions of higher education in Bangalore could be a possible alternative to deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See previous relist comment
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:03, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the list per SoWhy. We typically redirect non-notable educational institutions unless there is a reason not to. I don't see a reason not to here. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Wright (Composer)[edit]

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

Can't find any sources aside from one book with a passing mention, but that's it. Fails WP:GNG, and probably WP:COMPOSER since I'm not sure the two works mentioned are notable. Blue Edits (talk) 07:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If this article survives, please (a) move it to "..{composer)" lower case, and (b) sort out dab page or hatnote so it's findable from Seth Wright (redirect for character in tv show). PamD 13:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of serious intent to write this bio. This is a 2002-style essentially unsourced stub. We're past that. Carrite (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Soft delete as it has been relisted twice with no comment. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DSKO[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable musician. The sources in the article are sites of questionable reliability, YouTube videos or artist profiles, not significant coverage in reliable sources; a search failed to find any more coverage. The "Hype Machine chart" mentioned in the article actually appears to be some kind of blog aggregator thing rather than an actual music chart.

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I understand your concern for speedy deletion as you came across a page that is unfinished. This is my first wiki, and as you know I am learning a significant amount along the process. Please give me the opportunity to correct my links and sources as I am sure that they will aid you in understanding the validity of this particular recording artist. Thanks. ~~YoungDingus

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mark Klein (singer). v/r - T P 13:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's Just Me[edit]

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

Unnotable album by a musician also of somewhat questionable notability. I manage to find one source (just a track listing mind you) that at least proves the album existed. Clearly fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG nonetheless. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I didn't find any sources to expand this article. The only thing I saw was that this artist, supposedly, released this article when he was 10 years old. While this trivial fact is interesting, I haven't seen anything other sources besides the one TheGracefulSlick pointed out. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment normally a redirect to Mark Klein (singer) would be the logical choice for this not apparently notable album - except, is he notable? Even, is his band The Boogie Kings notable? It's all local press for the Baton Rouge area. --09:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sign of notability. Completely unreferenced. --Lockley (talk) 00:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect to Mark Klein (singer)?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 13:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis M. Kelleher[edit]

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

Article on a minor Washington lobbyist, with no actual sources (being a talking head on a couple of TV shows and being a source in a newspaper story don't count) and no indication of WHY he has an article. Calton | Talk 02:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep The Wikipedia Guide to Deletion directs nominators, "First do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the notability template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth." There are numerous sources on his career that a simple google search will reveal. He is surely notable but the article surely has serious problems as well. --JumpLike23 (talk) 05:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. This is an evidence-based encyclopedia, not a faith-based one: if you have ACTUAL and not imaginary reliable sources attesting to this nobody's notability, bring them on. The burden of proof lies in showing notability, not in showing non-notability, and that's something you're supposed to have figured out a long time ago. See also WP:GOOGLEHITS.--Calton | Talk 13:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence of notability, no assertion of notability, and the article's an unreferenced BLP. Original version was even more promotional, the work of a SPA. --Lockley (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a glorified CV and WP:ADVOCACY, with a tell-tale sign of such articles: multiple external links in the body of the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks notabilty Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 17:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. The article was speedy deleted by BU Rob13 per WP:G5. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Georgina Tolentino[edit]

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

This is another sockpuppet spam article. Like the others, it's packed full of junk references. Most don't mention her at all; those that do only mention her in passing. The closest thing to coverage she has here is IMDB, which lists some extra roles she had. —Guan aco 06:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 13:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Falduto[edit]

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

non-notable bit-player self-written vanity page sourced only to himself, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur that he does not meet WP:NACTOR. He had a small role in one film, and a bit part in an HBO movie in 2014 (character name; "Princeton student"). The recently released album supposedly peaked three days ago on this chart, but it's not on there now and I can't confirm this bit of information anywhere. Regardless, this is not a major chart and the person completely fails WP:MUSICBIO. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails GNG. Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Alongside this being a snow, the nom has withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Witness: The Tour[edit]

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

IndianBio (talk · contribs) doesn't want to provide WP:RSes has been removing tags to request proof of notability and reliance on primary sources. Currently fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:NCONCERT. Clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON but until it meets WP:GNG, delete the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there already are two legitimate secondary sources in the article giving a decent amount of detail. Only one primary reference is included. The article is by no means in perfect condition (and probably won't be until after the tour concludes), but it's enough to warrant a separate page (or at the very least a redirect to Witness (Katy Perry album)). WP:NOTADVERTISING doesn't really apply here as it's not like the page is saying "Go see this tour for the time of your life!" or anything else trying to entice audiences into attending. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SNUGGUMS' comment. Aoba47 (talk) 16:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Why play this policy that policy when we know a Katy Perry tour is ought to be notable? +SNUGGUMS' comment.--Beachey23 (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Because I placed two notices on the article and IndianBio removed them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Snuggums — Calvin999 09:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Snuggums' comments. Raritydash (talk) 05:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request withdrawn (could even be a snow close). Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Government of Uttarakhand. v/r - T P 13:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Uttarakhand government departments[edit]

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

List of non-notable governmental departments which does not meet WP:SAL and also WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTWEBHOST. External links for to dsome of the department's websites were in appropriately mebedded into the article, but I removed these per WP:ELLIST, WP:EL#cite_note-7 and WP:CS#Avoid embedded links. I cannot think of any way to bring this article up to Wikipedia's standards which does not involve adding relevant sourced commentary about each of these departments, and I do not think that is a viable option at all. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 02:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 02:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 02:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Government of Uttarakhand. No need for this stand alone list. Ajf773 (talk) 03:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested above; fails WP:LISTN. Clearly excessive & belongs on the org's web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Roman Food Tour[edit]

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

Advertisement for a tour company in Rome. The first set of sources not in-depth,they're basically advice for travelers to Rome . The second set, under "Tours", don't even mention the subject, but are just recommendations of places that the tours have visited Calton | Talk 02:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 04:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim of notability, the article is advertising as per nom. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete -- an advertisement for a tour company. I requested a speedy deletion under G11. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails GNG. Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete is appropriate -- first editor has same name as one of principles. This is pure advertisement. --Lockley (talk) 09:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as G11. (non-admin closure) K.e.coffman (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eating London Tours[edit]

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

Advertisement for a tour company in London. Being recommended in travel articles is NOT a substitute for in-depth coverage, nor are adding sources that only mention the places the tours visit. Calton | Talk 02:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim of notability, the article is advertising as per nom. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete -- unambiguous advertising. I requested a speedy deletion under G11; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as G11. (non-admin closure) K.e.coffman (talk) 03:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eating Italy Food Tours[edit]

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

Advertisement for a tour company in Rome. Not only are the sources not in-depth -- they're basically advice for travelers to Rome -- but some don't even mention the subject, but are just recommendations of places that the tours have visited. Calton | Talk 01:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim of notability, the article is advertising as per nom. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability. Seems like an advertisement to me as well. DJAustin (talk) 23:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete -- unambiguous advertising. I requested a speedy deletion under G11; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 13:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PlanetRisk[edit]

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

IP removed PROD. Non-notable company where the sourcing is run of the mill announcements of acquisitions or your standard business journal coverage that doesn't meet the WP:ORG requirements and are either reprints of PR, interviews, or have lax editorial standards. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- typical corp spam with language such as "merges big data sourcing and provides risk management, geospatial business intelligence[1] and social network analysis..." Otherwise, WP:CORPDEPTH is not met and no claim of significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails GNG. refs are less than meets the eye Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. I removed the corporate spam and puffery from the article - Wikipedia is not a platform for marketing or advocacy. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Qualifies as a stub post -- HighKing⁺⁺ (UTC) edits? WP:CORPDEPTH could now be added. 70.184.241.167 (talk) 18:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Notability requirements are no lesser for a stub than for a larger article.Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate as to why you invoked HighKing Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 13:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opporty (website)[edit]

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

Spam article about a marketing company where the coverage that exists is largely PR and interviews not meeting the requirements of WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Given that they are a advertising platform, they actually have significantly less coverage than you would expect for a non-notable company of this type, even among business journals and the PR press. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 01:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article on a start-up platform proposition. Neither the Blog listing nor the TNW item provide the reliable 3rd party references required for an article, whether considering this as a company or a product. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG, CORPDEPTH. South Nashua (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails GNG. Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "The average bedtime routine for toddlers takes over 90 mins". Voice Online. 30 May 2017. Retrieved 16 June 2017.

[2] King, Diana (1 June 2017). "Average toddler bedtime routine in UK takes an hour and a half". West Sussex County Times. Retrieved 16 June 2017.

[3] Begum, Shelina (11 July 2016). "Better Bathrooms announces 100 new jobs after strong sales growth". Manchester Evening News. Retrieved 16 June 2017.

[4] Ord, Matthew (27 January 2017). "Better Bathrooms to create 100 jobs with BGF backing". Insider Media Ltd. Retrieved 16 June 2017.

[5] Begum, Shelina (24 December 2015). "Better Bathrooms opens largest showroom in Birmingham". Manchester Evening News. Retrieved 16 June 2017.

[6] Armstrong, Ashley (18 October 2014). "Wolseley eyes return to retail with Better Bathrooms". Telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved 16 June 2017.

[7] SCHUTTE, SHANÉ (26 June 2015). "The UK's fastest growing private companies: Hot 100 2015 – (44) Better Bathrooms - Real Business". Real Business. Retrieved 16 June 2017.

[8] Jupp, Adam (10 June 2015). "Better Bathrooms appoints Lee Ellis as finance director". Manchester Evening News. Retrieved 16 June 2017.

[9] Graham, Natalie (29 May 2015). "My First Million — Colin Stevens". Financial Times. Retrieved 16 June 2017.

[10] Everett, Adam (11 November 2015). "Retailer scoops top award with David Cameron in attendance". Warrington Guardian. Retrieved 16 June 2017.

[11] Bradshaw, Louisa (11 November 2015). "Better Bathrooms Named Employer of the Year". Bdaily Business News. Retrieved 16 June 2017.

[12] Stephen, Phyllis (21 September 2015). "Edinburgh now has Better Bathrooms". www.theedinburghreporter.co.uk. Retrieved 16 June 2017.

[13] FOUND, NICHOLAS (8 November 2016). "Data: The top 30 retailers by the proportion of online sales". Retail Week. Retrieved 16 June 2017.

[14] Bradshaw, Louisa (10 June 2015). "Better Bathrooms appoint Lee Ellis as Finance Director". Bdaily Business News. Retrieved 16 June 2017.

[15] Begum, Shelina (10 April 2017). "The Wythenshawe lad who built an £85m company". Manchester Evening News. Retrieved 16 June 2017.

[16] Pescod, Adam (8 July 2013). "Better Bathrooms wins £10m investment from Business Growth Fund - Elite Business Magazine". Elite Business Magazine. Retrieved 16 June 2017.

[17] Bradshaw, Louisa (24 June 2015). "Better Bathrooms Opens A New Showroom In Cardiff". Bdaily Business News. Retrieved 16 June 2017.

[18] Begum, Shelina (6 June 2014). "Better Bathroom opens fifth showroom". Manchester Evening News. Retrieved 16 June 2017.

[19] "Better Bathrooms extends Palletways contract - Logistics Manager". Logistics Manager. 29 May 2015. Retrieved 16 June 2017.

[20] Lobel, Ben (14 November 2016). "Business Growth Fund reaches £1bn invested in UK companies". Growth Business. Retrieved 16 June 2017.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]