Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 September	8 September >

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. Mkdw ^talk 03:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KneePh[edit]

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

Does not satisfy general notability guidelines. Creator of the article appears to be the inventor. May be a valid speedy deletion. Jujutacular (talk) 23:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without references to show that it passes WP:GNG (and I have looked), it's too soon for an article. On the side, I can't really see any much point in the gadget, as when I'm having difficulties with a document case, an umbrella and a mobile phone, my knees are not particularly accessible. When they are, I'm not carrying things. Peridon (talk) 13:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unfortunately as although this is interesting, my searches found nothing but Kickstarter links and coverage specifically for that at News and browser. Simply not much for an article at this time. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is just not a collection of physical objects that may be interesting. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:48, 15 September 2015 (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. Jujutacular (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're Nicked![edit]

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

Nothing at IMDb, no refererences Fuddle (talk) 23:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The program just isn't particularly notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 12:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 12:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unfortunately there's not very good sourcing with my searches finding the best results here and here. SwisterTwister talk 07:13, 12 September 2015 (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 West Windsor-Plainsboro Regional School District. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Grover Middle School[edit]

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

Altho there are many references on the article, most all point to articles on students at the school. None are particularly WP:RS. There are no stated claims to any significant thing the school itself did, not that even such a claim would indicate notability. The only source that showed any potential was the highbeam article, but it is gone. Even if it wasn't, it is categorized in the reference as short. Without being able to see it, it sure doesn't show notability on its own. A Google news search turned 0 hits. Fails gng, school guidelines qualifications for notability and common outcomes. A redirect to the school district would be ~~acceptable~~ preferred. Would have boldly done so, but one was reverted previously. John from Idegon (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources to support notability of this middle school. Delete and redirect to school district article. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Magnolia677 - redirect and delete are two separate outcomes. Please clarify. John from Idegon (talk) 07:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete and redirect" is an option in egregious cases where the content must be deleted but the title is still a plausible search term. This does not appear to be one of those cases. A selective merge at editors' discretion and redirect to school district may be more appropriate if this school is not notable. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think it's notable, its a well known school and has a strong New Jersey school report card rating (meaning its a top school in New Jersey that has made major contributions to the State). I am from the area so I may be a bit biased but that is my opinion. I am a little strapped for time at the moment but I will add a few sources to prove its notability later on. Of course I have no intention of impeding the growth of Wikipedia if redirecting the article is for the good of Wikipedia then so be it but it's my personal opinion that it should be kept as its own separate article. Have a pleasant day :). --Sanjev Rajaram (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs independent reliable sources to establish that notability. The article's current references are primary sources and press releases. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What types of sources would qualify in that category so that I may try to search and see if there are any that fit the criteria. --Sanjev Rajaram (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to school district article as is the long-standing tradition for middle school articles established over hundreds of AfD's and expressed at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Jacona (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to West Windsor-Plainsboro Regional School District per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, As an aside I would've redirected myself but I know for a fact I'd get reverted so too save all that crap I'll just !vote!. –Davey2010^Talk 00:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC). –Davey2010^Talk 00:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Selective merging of a small amount of information after the redirect would be okay with me. Kharkiv07 (T) 16:12, 14 September 2015 (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. Mkdw ^talk 15:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

T.S.V. 'Jan Pieter Minckelers'[edit]

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

Unsourced and not notable enough for inclusion Aparslet (talk) 22:05, 7 September 2015 (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/2015 September 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete searches on the engines (except for Highbeam, which was down), returned zero results, except for a single mention on Books. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:50, 15 September 2015 (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. With no true coverage anywhere, I can't see this closing any other way so I'm closing it early for WP:SNOW. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lanza space station[edit]

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

"Upcoming" game with no claim to notability, no non-primary sources, and almost no extant information. Fails WP:GNG among other things. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. --The1337gamer (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Existence must precede notability. New Media Theorist (talk) 22:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -No sources found that could establish notability. ABF99 (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the above arguments CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:04, 8 September 2015 (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'm closing as Speedy Keep per SK1 as 1. Nominator hasn't searched for anything and 2. AFD isn't a clean up solution! (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity (The Matrix)[edit]

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

This article fails WP:NOTPLOT. DJ Autagirl (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2015 (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/2015 September 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A robust, good-faith nomination might have mentioned the possibility of a merge and redirest to List of minor characters in the Matrix series and that this was one of a series of related nominations. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the list of minor characters is already WP:TOOLONG. Merging this entire series of AfDs into the list would make it way too WP:TOOBIG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is no evidence that the nominator has tried any alternatives to deletion, such as looking at the literature to see if Trinity is notable. A google scholar search for Trinity "The Matrix" film gives 5820 results. AFD should not be used for cleanup, and AFDing all the characters in one go means that it would be difficult for anyone to fix the articles in the time given. 110.20.234.69 (talk) 03:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is lots of content in google about this topic. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:46, 13 September 2015 (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'm closing as Speedy Keep per SK1 as 1. Nominator hasn't searched for anything and 2. AFD isn't a clean up solution! (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Oracle (The Matrix)[edit]

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

This article fails WP:NOTPLOT. DJ Autagirl (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2015 (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/2015 September 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A robust, good-faith nomination might have mentioned the possibility of a merge and redirest to List of minor characters in the Matrix series and that this was one of a series of related nominations. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the list of minor characters is already WP:TOOLONG. Merging this entire series of AfDs into the list would make it way too WP:TOOBIG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is no evidence that the nominator has tried any alternatives to deletion, such as looking at the literature to see if The Oracle is notable. The Oracle has attracted critical commentary as a "magical negro" or "mammy" figure, and a google scholar search for oracle "The Matrix" film gives 3400 results. AFD should not be used for cleanup, and AFDing all the characters in one go means that it would be difficult for anyone to fix the articles in the time given. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 05:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is lots of content in google about this topic. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:46, 13 September 2015 (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'm closing as Speedy Keep per SK1 as 1. Nominator hasn't searched for anything and 2. AFD isn't a clean up solution! (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seraph (The Matrix)[edit]

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

This article fails WP:NOTPLOT. DJ Autagirl (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2015 (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/2015 September 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A robust, good-faith nomination might have mentioned the possibility of a merge and redirest to List of minor characters in the Matrix series and that this was one of a series of related nominations. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2015 (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'm closing as Speedy Keep per SK1 as 1. Nominator hasn't searched for anything and 2. AFD isn't a clean up solution! (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Persephone (The Matrix)[edit]

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

This article fails WP:NOTPLOT. DJ Autagirl (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2015 (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/2015 September 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A robust, good-faith nomination might have mentioned the possibility of a merge and redirest to List of minor characters in the Matrix series and that this was one of a series of related nominations. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2015 (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'm closing as Speedy Keep per SK1 as 1. Nominator hasn't searched for anything and 2. AFD isn't a clean up solution! (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Niobe (The Matrix)[edit]

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

This article fails WP:NOTPLOT. DJ Autagirl (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2015 (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/2015 September 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A robust, good-faith nomination might have mentioned the possibility of a merge and redirest to List of minor characters in the Matrix series and that this was one of a series of related nominations. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2015 (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'm closing as Speedy Keep per SK1 as 1. Nominator hasn't searched for anything and 2. AFD isn't a clean up solution! (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neo (The Matrix)[edit]

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

This article fails WP:NOTPLOT, and may contain original research. DJ Autagirl (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2015 (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/2015 September 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A robust, good-faith nomination might have mentioned the possibility of a merge and redirest to List of minor characters in the Matrix series and that this was one of a series of related nominations. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many of the Matrix characters nominated in this group probably belong on the list, but I think there's plenty of evidence that Neo is a notable archetype. "Neo" is not the easiest name to search, but, for example, the exploratory search phrase "like Neo in the Matrix" yields 100+ hits in GNews and 70+ in GScholar as well as lots of suggestive results in Google and GBooks. A few specific examples of substantive discussion of the character's symbolism or relevance to concepts outside the film: [1][2][3]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is lots of content in google about this topic. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the character is notable, and the article can be improved through editing. AfD is not for cleanup. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:45, 13 September 2015 (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'm closing as Speedy Keep per SK1 as 1. Nominator hasn't searched for anything and 2. AFD isn't a clean up solution! (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Architect (The Matrix)[edit]

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

This article fails WP:NOTPLOT. DJ Autagirl (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2015 (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/2015 September 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A robust, good-faith nomination might have mentioned the possibility of a merge and redirest to List of minor characters in the Matrix series and that this was one of a series of related nominations. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 12 September 2015 (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'm closing as Speedy Keep per SK1 as 1. Nominator hasn't searched for anything and 2. AFD isn't a clean up solution! (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agent Smith[edit]

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

This article fails WP:NOTPLOT. DJ Autagirl (talk) 21:15, 7 September 2015 (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/2015 September 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A robust, good-faith nomination might have mentioned the possibility of a merge and redirest to List of minor characters in the Matrix series and that this was one of a series of related nominations. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agent Smith has had an enduring impact. Weaving reprised the role two years ago, and The Guardian published an article about 'why I want to be Hugo Weaving in the Matrix' last year. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 08:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is lots of content in google about this topic. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. –Davey2010^Talk 00:13, 14 September 2015 (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'm closing as Speedy Keep per SK1 as 1. Nominator hasn't searched for anything and 2. AFD isn't a clean up solution! (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agent (The Matrix)[edit]

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

This article fails WP:NOTPLOT. DJ Autagirl (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2015 (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/2015 September 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A robust, good-faith nomination might have mentioned the possibility of a merge and redirest to List of minor characters in the Matrix series and that this was one of a series of related nominations. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 12 September 2015 (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. slakr^\ talk / 02:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sweere-arse[edit]

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

This is a procedural re-opening of an old AFD. The article was nominated by User:Adam9007 on the grounds that "Doesn't appear to be notable. The article's source is the only one I can find (in fact, the article seems to have been copied almost straight from it)." That discussion was truncated by some copyright confusion, so relisting to hear the original grounds. (See the article's talk page.) Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. No evidence this term was widely used or has any particular significance. Fails WP:GNG. Jbh ^Talk 20:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I cannot believe the publication date was overlooked! I found a couple of other sources, but both of them attribute it to or have copied it from the same source, so this is not a copyvio. However, I still can't find any evidence of notability. Adam9007 (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was certainly a game, which ought to be notable provided there are reliable sources. One is given in the article; another is The English Dialect Dictionary, Joseph Wright, London: Henry Frowde; New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1904, page 874, which states "a game", describing it as "A sport among ... children, in which two of them are seated on the ground, and, holding a stick between them, endeavour each of them to draw the other up from the sitting posture. The heaviest in the posterior wins the game. MACKAY. Ant. Get up, some o' you twa, an' feed the kye [cows]. You wud think you wur drawin' sweererce, Ballymena Obs. (1892)". This is certainly a reliable source, as are the sources it cites; the game exists and is of encyclopaedic interest. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good find of an additional source however all of the references I have found, including the one you cite above, have exactly the same definition. The one you quote above and the initial citation seem to trace back to this earlier book.^[1]

References

^ Macay, Charles (1882). Poetry and Humour. p. 350. Sweer-arse . . . a sport among Scottish children, in which two of them are seated on the ground, and, holding a stick between them, endeavour each of them to draw the other up from the sitting posture. The heaviest in the posterior wins the game.

Quoted in The Dictionary of Scots Language. The three references are not independent two being authored by Charles MacKay and the third, later, source reproducing his text exactly. I would think if the game were notable something else would have been said about it in the last 133 years. Jbh ^Talk 22:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG as none of the sources represent significant coverage - would be suitable for a dictionary entry, which is what is cited - but wikipedia isn't a dictionary. --ℕ ℱ 22:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google finds little but references to jamieson and wikipedia mirrors. I checked British Newspaer Archives [4] for this and the synonyms mentioned to no avail.Derek Andrews (talk) 13:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no doubt that it isn't a real game, but I do question the notability of it. At least to the point where it merits its own Wikipedia article. The WP:SIGCOV does not appear to be there to justify the article. Mkdw ^talk
Delete - Not notable and a quick search on Google finds little to nothing besides brief mentions. MrWooHoo (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Overall consensus is to Keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tyson Lee (quarterback)[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Generally starting quarterbacks pass WP:GNG and there seems to be some good sources already in the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Fails WP:NCOLLATH. Sources are game recaps (WP:ROUTINE), bio on MSU website, and a blog. — X96lee15 (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While there is no rule rendering major program starting QBs notable, Paul is correct that they do tend to receive ample coverage sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Lee was a starting QB in the SEC (best conference in college football), and, not surprisingly, his case falls within the norm. Examples of significant coverage include: (1) this from The Commercial Dispatch, (2) this from The Packet, (3) this from Mississippi Sports Magazine, and (4) this from the Northeast Mississipi Daily Journal.~~, and (5) this from Juco Weekly.~~ Cbl62 (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The first four articles linked by Cbl62 above constitute enough significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. The fifth article in Juco Weekly is primarily about the subject's younger brother, and only mentions the subject incidentally. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a WP:GNG pass, per Cbl62. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Truck and Trailer South Africa[edit]

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

Barely a claim of significance and plenty of promotional material. Hardly an encyclopaedia article. Adam9007 (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional and without references. They have some nice trucks, but sadly none are notable. Suggest they get into business of selling notable trucks. New Media Theorist (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Who's to suggest it? (Or did you mean to use another pronoun?) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (inform) @ 20:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing here to suggest notability for an article. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (inform) @ 20:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Page Author: The above issues I believe has been addressed as I have updated the page with newly written content which should not come across as promotional or sales related, and cited more sources. Please take note that this is a well known publication in the South African market in this specific niche. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OliverDFW (talk • contribs) 08:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:GNG. checking the references:

1.[5] - The Best Advice You’ll Ever Get 19. Felix Erkin, founder talking about google.

2.[6] - Truck & Trailer, a couple of lines about the portal.

3.[7] - Alli-Cat Publishing Recruiter Profile, again a couple of lines.

4.[8] - Digital products of Junk Mail Digital Media, wikilink to list that includes subject.

5. exactly the same as no. 3.

6. exactly the same as no. 2.

None of the above references help notability being trivial mentions and/or not independent of the subject. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK # 3. There is no WP:OR. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 17:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Failing to appear at sentencing[edit]

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

OR LavaBaron (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2015 (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. Mkdw ^talk 03:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Mahbubul Islam[edit]

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

Early-career postdoctoral researcher. Citation record is decent for that stage of career, but far from what we usually take as notable here. Article is also quite spammy. No in-depth independent sources. Does not meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Topic fails the primary WP:GNG criterion. --OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 16:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - They're just not particularly notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google scholar citation counts not high enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1 (although they're heading in that direction) and there seems to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as there's nothing to suggest obvious improvement and my searches found nothing particularly better. SwisterTwister talk 07:25, 12 September 2015 (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 per WP:CSD#G5. Blocked user recreated the article with a different account. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rule Based DFM analysis - DHD[edit]

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

Appears to be more of an essay than an encyclopaedic article, mainly from the tone Mdann52 (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete...I agree with above, also the stats say that it has been viewed zero times in the 90 days prior to this nomination. This article is not notable and has no informational value to Wiki users.--RAF910 (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2015 (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. Mkdw ^talk 03:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rush Tully[edit]

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

BLP with no references or sources. Kelly ^hi! 13:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This was a very (self)promotional article and entirely unreferenced. I've cleaned it up, removing the most glaring self-serving claims and puffery (this is what it looked like prior to clean up) and then looked for any coverage of this person. Everything that I could find is now in the article as citations but it simply isn't enough to pass either the General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG) or the alternative criteria at WP:MUSICBIO. It doesn't even come close. Despite the original claim to have "performed many seasons with Lyric Opera of Chicago", the LOC archives list him for only two seasons and all in extremely minor roles. The only other performances I could verify are with a very small company, Skylight Music Theatre, and again generally not in leading roles, and again only with passing mentions in local reviews. The solo CD is self-published. He gets a passing mention for a score he wrote for an artist I've never heard of in the Albuquerque Journal, but none of his compositions appear to have been published or held in libraries. A search of WorldCat returns only a CD of hymns recorded by choir members from four churches in Minnesota, where he is listed as one of several soloists [9]. I can find no sources whatsoever which verify any of the other biographical "information" in the article. Voceditenore (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable subject, promotional article.--Smerus (talk) 04:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now (feel free to draft & userfy) as although it may seem he could be notable, there are no signs of better sourcing and my searches found nothing aside from a few Books. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 12 September 2015 (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 TNT delete. Explanation at bottom. Nyttend (talk) 23:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manika (singer)[edit]

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Fails notability guidelines on a massive scale. Almost every source here comes from press releases, fan sites, unreliable sources, the subject's social media, etc. This borders on a press release. Chase (talk | contributions) 16:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget to mention that the sources for the article (like Pollstar) are interviews where the subject gives false information. See here for details where I actually fact checked her claims:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Oshwah#Manika_page

I keep trying to edit the article to remove all the fake "facts" and keep it neutral as possible, but the article keeps being reverted to the original so if deletion is necessary, so be it. Can someone lock the article at least? AyanP (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)AyanP[reply]

Keep The article certainly needs lots of work, but that's not a reason for deletion. She appears to meet WP:MUSIC criterion #2 as she's charted: e.g. Billboard chart result. Bondegezou (talk) 17:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What chart is that? And charting is not automatic grounds for a subject to receive an article. Significant coverage in multiple reliable publications is the basic requirement for any Wikipedia topic. Chase (talk | contributions) 18:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The various notability guidelines, like WP:MUSIC, are generally adhered to. To quote WP:N: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: 1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right"

"Just Can't Let You Go" made #21 on Billboard's singles sales chart (that's as opposed to their main singles chart that combines sales and airplay). The link I gave earlier showing #86, I think that's for the main singles chart. Bondegezou (talk) 22:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, the article was a mess. I and others have tried to clean it up. Thanks especially to AyanP. But I think what's left satisfies notability criteria. Bondegezou (talk) 22:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSICBIO also says that a subject only may be suitable for inclusion if it meets a guideline there. The chart you've provided is for physical single sales (a virtually nonexistent market in America at the moment), only a component of the main US chart. It did not chart at #86 on the Hot 100 (America's primary music chart), by the way; it does not show in her chart history on Billboard's website. And the main issue here is that the sourcing is terrible. Nearly all of the sources appear unreliable aside from Seventeen magazine (and that isn't the strongest of sources). So seriously consider if we really need to keep an article on a non-noteworthy singer just because she ranked on a small component chart. Chase (talk | contributions) 23:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are not any reliable sources, none. Interviews are a form of self-sourcing, when these are swept away, all that's left is a promotional release.Jacona (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not particularly bothered whether this article survives AfD or not -- you can change my "keep" to a "weak keep". It is a borderline case (and I find myself more and more a deletionist these days!), but to address a couple of points in the above... The singles sales chart I quoted is all sales as far as I understand, not just physical sales. But you're right about Billboard here not showing anything charting for Manika in the regular chart (I had misunderstood the link I gave above). (Billboard also has a biography for her.) Most material on some new singer is going to be in the form of interviews. If sufficient significant sources want to interview someone, that shows notability. Material written by the journalist at the beginning of an interview is not self-sourced. This article does have problems with sourcing and undue claims, but WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. Bondegezou (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any point in cleaning up....nothing. Which is what we have here. Zero reliable sources. This is not a notable subject. Jacona (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Billboard's Singles Sales chart is just physical sales and does not include digital sales. There's a separate chart for digital sales and the Hot 100 (the actual main singles chart) combines everything with radio and streaming. The issue here is that single sales are virtually non-existent. I also searched for retailers that carry Manika's physical singles and nothing showed up. Something's fishy here...

Thank you for that correction. Bondegezou (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm going with delete now too. That same person is hijacking the page again. (S)he's even claiming that Manika has "relevance" in pop culture and her social media followers are real (they're not). AyanP (talk) 02:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)AyanP[reply]

This is all one comment by the same editor, put in collapse brackets so that it is clearer that it is the same editor's comment. Steel1943 (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Manika (singer) wiki page meets at least five of the criteria for musician (only 1 is needed and she has at least 5)

-Criteria 1: honestly if you just google her hundreds and hundreds of such articles ( like in Review Journal^[1], Latina Magazine,^[2] People Magazine , 17 magazine/ Cosmo,^[3] etc.) Also, I have seen her in at least four printed magazines (DLXVRSN- she was the cover girl ^[4],^[5] People Magazine - under red carpet "who wore it better", La Palme Magazine,^[6] and a few more I can't remember.)

-Criteria 2: Two of her singles have charted at #12 and #21 on the national Billboard Sales Chart. %5D=ts_chart_artistname%3Amanika&f%5B1%5D=ss_bb_type%3Achart_item&type=2&artist=manika Billboard Chart

-Criteria 4: Her tour with One Direction Up_All_Night_Tour#Opening_acts and some other tours she did as well but the One Direction seems to be her most popular.^[7]

-Criteria 10: She did score an entire television series that aired on Discovery. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4556714/ Global Beauty Masters on Discover

-Criteria 11: Five of her singles have been placed in rotation of Top 40 radio stations shown in the media base charts (note you have to be a member to view) http://www.mediabase.com/mmrweb/7/SongHistory.asp?sngcde=MANIMW On these charts it shows her last song "B.Y.O.Bugatti" having 302 plays on Sirius XM Venus station alone.

-Criteria 12: She was featured on the nationally televised Hollywood Christmas Parade and on "Global Beauty Masters" that aired on Discover

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4556714/ Global Beauty Masters on Discover  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2108455/?ref_=nm_flmg_slf_1

-Additional: She just released a collaboration with rapper Tyga "I Might Go Lesbian (feat. Tyga)" Manika Tyga Collab

Comment These all look like press releases, interviews, schedule listings, rather than significant secondary sources. In short, a lot of promotion, but not much independent interest. Her promoter has apparently spent a lot of money, but a Wikipedia article is not supposed to be for sale.Jacona (talk) 13:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP~~: Seems to me that this should be kept due to her relevance in pop culture

-ie. : Her most recent collaboration with rapper Tyga "I Might Go Lesbian (feat. Tyga)"

-ie.: Her touring with One Direction Up_All_Night_Tour#Opening_acts

-ie. Her fan base is quite substantial facebook.com/ManikaOfficial twitter.com/ManikaOfficial youtube.com/ManikaOfficial

-ie: Her songs have charted #12 and #21 in Billboard %5D=ts_chart_artistname%3Amanika&f%5B1%5D=ss_bb_type%3Achart_item&type=2&artist=manika Billboard Chart

~~KEEP~~:

- there used to be some unreliable sources, however I managed to find several reliable sources for each point in the article

-there was some additional not needed information in previous drafts, but it has all been removed

~~KEEP~~: I noticed there were a lot of discussion on whether or not her Billboard charts were legit. I looked it up on the billboard website and turns out that indeed she did chart at both #12 and #21 on Billboard Sales This meets criteria #2 for musicians http://www.billboard.com/biz/search/charts?f[0]=ts_chart_artistname%3Amanika&f[1]=ss_bb_type%3Achart_item&type=2&artist=manika — 68.224.55.160 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 23:35, 3 September 2015‎ (UTC).[reply]

References

^ http://www.reviewjournal.com/entertainment/music/las-vegas-born-singer-manika-takes-two-holiday-classics. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ http://www.latina.com/entertainment/buzz/pop-singer-manika-exclusive-interview. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ http://www.seventeen.com/celebrity/music/a14528/manika-showcase-performance/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ http://deluxe-version.com/featured-super-star-manika/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ https://squareup.com/market/dlxvrsn-magazine/dlxvrsn-fw?square_lead=item_embed. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ http://issuu.com/kevinlapalme/docs/summer_2015/78. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ http://www.metrolyrics.com/news-story-my-musical-mind-manika.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Comment. Multiple keep votes struck. IP 68.224.55.160 voted 4 times in one edit. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing reliable about this article.

1) The Billboard sub-chart is for physical singles sales, which barely even exist. I searched online for any retailers that carry physical singles of any Manika song and none do. I'm wondering where these physical sales came from, especially considering there is no market for it and no retailers carry Manika's physical singles. Either way, not showing any "relevance in pop culture" like the person who keeps hijacking the article claims.

2) Her fan base is NOT real. If you click on the profiles of the people who respond to her on Instagram, Twitter, Youtube and Facebook, you can tell that they're all fake profiles. Click on the usernames and you'll notice that they all have 6-7 LQ uploads without any pictures of themselves on Instagram:

https://instagram.com/p/55zUWCn46F/

Or on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/ManikaOfficial/status/629038942138990592

3) "Wamaframa Records" isn't even a real record label. The new reference link you added for the label goes to iTunes. That doesn't make "Wamaframa" a legitimate record label. Anyone can upload things on iTunes. And again, it's not: http://www.wamaframa.com/

4) "Asian Spanish" is not an ethnicity. This is an encyclopedia article, not a PR release to create some ambiguous ethnicity to appeal to people.

5) Nothing that this person keeps adding is notable at all. The most notable thing is opening for One Direction years ago when they were a new band and collaborating with Tyga. AyanP (talk) 02:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)AyanP[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Lyle, Michael (2011-11-29). "Henderson teen hopes to become a pop star". Las Vegas Review-Journal. Archived from the original on 2015-09-05. Retrieved 2015-09-05.
2. Przybys, John (2011-12-08). "Las Vegas-born singer Manika takes on two holiday classics". Las Vegas Review-Journal. Archived from the original on 2015-09-05. Retrieved 2015-09-05.
3. Romero, Angie (2011-05-16). "Introducing Manika". Latina. Archived from the original on 2015-09-05. Retrieved 2015-09-05.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Manika to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Independent sources" require no attachment to the subject and no COI. Interviews with the subject that goose her popularity and musical abilities to attract readers don't really qualify. WP:SPIP speaks on self-promotion and says: "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter." Chase (talk | contributions) 00:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, two of those publications are based in the subject's hometown. Chase (talk | contributions) 00:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "incentive, promotion, or other influence" for either the Las Vegas Review-Journal or Latina to cover her. They both have "no attachment to the subject and no COI". It is correct that Las Vegas Review-Journal is based in her hometown. But Latina is not based in her hometown and has a national circulation of 150,000 and a readership of over 600,000 (source: http://www.latinastyle.com/mediakit.pdf^WebCite). Significant coverage in Latina makes her have national notability, not merely local notability.

Cunard (talk) 01:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Publicist-arranged interviews are not independent. There's a symbiotic nature of "we promote our artist and you get a good feature story." I'm curious as to where the reliable sources are that comment on her music without any involvement from her. Chase (talk | contributions) 01:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that these are publicist-arranged interviews. Cunard (talk) 02:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most coverage of most musicians consists of interviews with the subject. And most of those interviews will be arranged because the musicians has something to promote. It makes no sense to strike every such interview as not being reliable -- we'd lose half the musician articles on Wikipedia. There are exceedingly few articles that would meet Chase's strict interpretation. (Would you excise every comment from a review given most reviews are done because the record company sent out a free copy?) The likes of the Las Vegas Review-Journal or Latina are reputable publications that are making an editorial choice that this person is of sufficient interest to be worth covering by them. Bondegezou (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of articles about notable musicians that would meet the criteria. There's obviously nothing wrong with using interviews, reviews, and other such pieces that are arranged by the artist's marketing team, but when the vast majority of the subject's coverage in major publications is a result of such PR planting, that should raise major red flags. Wikipedia isn't supposed to cover a small record label's up-and-coming act to serve as promotion for them. And there is a section in the notability guideline devoted specifically to self-promotion in reliable sources. Chase (talk | contributions) 14:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's obviously nothing wrong with using interviews, reviews, and other such pieces that are arranged by the artist's marketing team, but when the vast majority of the subject's coverage in major publications is a result of such PR planting, that should raise major red flags. – this is yet another unsupported accusation that the Las Vegas Review-Journal and Latina articles are "PR planting". Such an unsupported claim could be made about any article written about an artist. Please provide evidence for these claims or stop making them. Cunard (talk) 17:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To quote SPIP: The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself ... have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter. An interview with the subject, padding for the publications, is absolutely incentive to cover her. Surely if this artist were truly notable, readers would be so interested in her that journalists would write articles without her participation. And for the record, my claims could not be made about any artist who meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Chase (talk | contributions) 18:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surely if this artist were truly notable, readers would be so interested in her that journalists would write articles without her participation – a good journalist always attempts to interview the article's subject. These good journalists from Las Vegas Review-Journal and Latina spoke with her for their pieces because attempting to speak with article subjects is their job.

That the journalists spoke with her does not make them suddenly non-independent.

Is an article in The New York Times no longer usable as a source to establish notability for a subject if their journalist spoke with that subject? No.

Cunard (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP More than Sufficient Notability/3rd Party Sources/ Media Coverage

First of all as user IP 68.224.55.160 said and proves she meets SIX of the Notability requirements when ONLY ONE IS NEEDED

Secondly for those who are all falsely saying Manika does not sufficient 3rd party sources/media coverage, etc. Here are 202 3rd party sources/articles/media coverage I found just by googling her name:

Too much external links. I doubt anyone will be looking at all those links and it is rather disruptive to the discussion.

http://issuu.com/kevinlapalme/docs/summer_2015/78 http://www.reviewjournal.com/entertainment/the-reel/50-cent-panic-the-disco-and-more-due-wine-amplified-fall http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/29926226/wine-amplified-2015-reveal-its-lineup-of-big-artists http://www.soundcloudmusicreviews.com/manika-presents-b-y-o-bugatti-hip-hop/ http://thespotmusicreviews.com/2014/01/07/manika-close-to-her-breakout-moment/#more-161 http://www.latina.com/entertainment/buzz/pop-singer-manika-exclusive-interview#axzz2i639ZP00 http://www.wineamplified.com/#!lineup/chsw http://ifelicious.com/2014/10/15/one-direction-tour-mate-manika-unveils-new-style-with-vegas-party-featured-in-battle-of-the-strandsglobal-beauty-masters/ http://ventsmagazine.com/one-direction-tourmate-manika-steps-into-the-spotlight-premieres-new-music-video/ http://deluxe-version.com/featured-super-star-manika/ http://www.pollstar.com/news_article.aspx?ID=814767 http://blog.starcount.com/manika-bigger-than-bruno-mars/ http://official1dus.wordpress.com/2013/05/28/lookout-for-manika/ http://thatsoceleb.com/lookout-for-manika/ http://www.channelapa.com/2013/01/my-way-music-video-by-manika.html#ixzz2NvFCwS9a

http://ifelicious.com/2013/06/11/exclusive-manika-fulfills-frank-dileos-vision-with-album-touring-with-aaron-carter-and-more/ https://www.fanlala.com/news/manika-has-new-album-way

http://www.channelone.com/manika/

http://www.fansshare.com/news/exclusive-interview-manika-discusses-touring-with-one-direction/

http://www.melismaticblog.com/2013/06/interview-coming-up-hear-this-manika.html

http://feather-magazine.com/?p=9949

http://www.melismaticblog.com/2013/07/in-reviewinterview-manika-unleases-her.html?m=1

https://soundcloud.com/manikaofficial/sets/manika-b-y-o-bugatti-jump

http://www.artistdirect.com/entertainment-news/article/take-aim-amy-sciarretto-vs-manika/10647998

presspassla.com/index.php/underground/item/1270-take-five-with-newcomer-manika

http://andrewliscio.buzznet.com/user/journal/17339438/exclusive-pop-artist-manika-one/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3RJKzPDzn8k

hellhoundmusic.com/rising-pop-star-manika-releases-her-debut-double-album-announces-appearance-on-battle-of-the-strands

http://www.girlslife.com/post/2013/06/19/First-listen-Manikas-debut-double-album.aspx

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4DP1XccDDj4

http://feather-magazine.com/?p=10928

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/manika-ward/65/a8/380 http://archive.is/HJ6H http://www.gettyimages.com.au/editorial/manika-pictures http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/i8gGu77W-kv/Premiere+Sony+Pictures+Classics+Damsels+Distress/x8-yY5qyj9A/Manika http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/C3-L2qD_fyS/Premiere+Weinstein+Company+Bully+Red+Carpet/XtCBBDEWBRk/Manika http://onedirection.com.br/cantora-manika-conta-segredos-do-1d/ http://www.zimbio.com/photos/Manika/Paris+Hilton+Throws+Christmas+Party/n9jXRapmbbN http://www.latina.com/entertainment/music/introducing-manika http://onedirectionupdates.wordpress.com/2012/07/09/photos-manikaofficial-supporting-act-with-one-direction-during-their-uan-tour/manika/ https://teendiaries.net/videos/manika-good-girls https://www.trendsettermarketing.net/manika-pop-star/ http://www.kidzworld.com/article/25754-manika-bio http://projects.accessatlanta.com/gallery/view/music/one-direction-gwinnett/12.html http://www.sheknows.com/entertainment/articles/821034/Manika-dishes-building-musical-success http://www.youngmoneyhq.com/2011/06/17/manika-just-cant-let-you-go-feat-lil-twist-music-video/ http://blog.catdrivers.com/2011/12/12/manika-plays-at-kluc-toy-drive-for-help-of-southern-nevada.aspx http://www.jackfroot.com/2011/07/just-cant-let-you-go-by-manika-feat-lil-twist/ http://courier.snosites.com/news/2011/06/29/manika-rocks-newsroom-by-the-bay/ http://www.popstaronline.com/manika-takes-a-break-from-her-tour-with-one-direction/ http://www.metrolyrics.com/blog/2012/06/20/my-musical-mind-manika/ http://ventsmagazine.com/one-direction-tourmate-manika-steps-into-the-spotlight-premieres-new-music-video/ http://www.todaystmj4.com/features/whatshot?bctid=1157648445001 http://www.channelapa.com/2013/01/my-way-music-video-by-manika.html http://www.zimbio.com/Manika http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/IzfjdTwz40c/Premiere+Disney+Channel+Radio+Rebel+Arrivals/_0Kyo3bJ08T/Manika http://www.zimbio.com/photos/Manika/Premiere+Disney+Channel+Radio+Rebel+Arrivals/_0Kyo3bJ08T http://www.zimbio.com/photos/Manika/LA+Premiere+Twyla+Tharp+Frank+Sinatra+Musical/q0d1HLbaOEG http://www.zimbio.com/photos/Manika/House+Hype+2011+MTV+Video+Music+Awards+After/T3wabtAxVKZ http://celebsecrets4u.com/category/manika/ http://www.pollstar.com/news_article.aspx?ID=778119 http://musicremedy.com/m/manika/ http://ifelicious.com/?s=manika http://www.teenspot.com/spotlight/manika-documents-vma-experience-at-celeb-packed-after-party/ http://www.flipbooth.com/disableadblock.php?t=FlipBooth%20-%20Manika-%20Give%20A%20Little%2C%20Take%20A%20Little%20-%20Free%20Pinoy%2024%20TV http://www.outpic.com/performer/23447eb2-5403-40cf-a166-22966d08b80c http://theawesomecave.com/manika-is-pretty-bomb-you-guys/ http://1dlovedrunkk.tumblr.com/post/46063186974/manikaofficial-manika-awesome-onedirection http://www.planethollywoodintl.com/press/manika_tip.pdf http://www.fansshare.com/news/manika-reveals-one-direction-secrets/ http://www.andpop.com/2011/06/17/an-interview-with-manika/ http://www.melismaticblog.com/2012/07/watch-this-manika-is-good-girl.html http://www.sun-sentinel.com/entertainment/sfl-one-direction-performs-at-bankatlantic-cen-002,0,4582945.photo http://onedirectionupdates.wordpress.com/2012/07/13/manika-spills-1ds-secrets-one-directions-tour-habits-revealed/ http://www.933flz.com/photos/main/manika-opens-for-one-direction-323320/#/0/19392379 http://wevegotyoucovered.buzznet.com/photos/buzznetexclusivemani/ http://www.channelapa.com/2011/07/just-cant-let-you-go-by-manika-x-lil-twist.html http://blog.music.aol.com/2012/07/17/manika-good-girls-video-premiere/ http://www.timeforkids.com/news/introducing-manika/11651 http://www.pollstar.com/news_article.aspx?ID=778119 http://serenaphillips.wordpress.com/2013/01/28/11/ http://lvserena.tumblr.com/ http://www.ok.co.uk/celebrity-news/view/51450/One-Direction-s-tour-habits-revealed-here-are-the-Top-5-things-you-didn-t-know-about-them/ http://tommy2.net/content/?tag=manika http://feather-magazine.com/?p=5161 http://voices.yahoo.com/exclusive-interview-manika-talks-music-giving-11087356.html?cat=33 http://www.teen.com/2012/06/18/music/new-music/manika-one-direction-interview-single/ http://www.melismaticblog.com/2012/06/hear-thisinterview-manika-is-good-girl.html http://www.seventeen.com/cosmogirl/manika-interview http://www.zimbio.com/Manika/articles/h3KrRsosPHd/One+Direction+tour+mate+Manika+debuts+video http://www.veengle.com/s/MANIKA/4.html http://auspop.blogspot.com/2012/05/pop-gets-manika.html http://one-directionfans.com/category/tours/ http://www.reviewjournal.com/entertainment/music/las-vegas-born-singer-manika-takes-two-holiday-classics http://www.shoppingblog.com/manika-to-release-good-girls-single-on-june-5th-515201214 http://ifelicious.com/2011/09/15/pop-singer-manika-performs-at-audubon-middle-school-in-milwaukee-video-photos/ http://www.bsckids.com/2012/08/one-directions-opening-act-manika-releases-good-girls/ http://www.zimbio.com/Manika/articles/Rop5ExtzzcN/Interview+Manika+Middle+Hollywood+EP+touring http://shelby.tv/video/vimeo/43677166/manika-dance-party-at-tumblr http://tweengirlstylemagazine.com/Home/?attachment_id=5936 http://ontheteenbeat.com/2012/08/10/check-out-good-girls-by-manika/ http://www.allaccess.com/top40-mainstream/artist-info/q/id/2265/manika http://www.zimbio.com/Manika/articles/KIVC2O3vV1N/Pop+sensation+Manika+touring+One+Direction http://www.onedirectionhotspot.com/Blog/June-2012/Manika-Says-She-is-Having-the-Time-of-Her-Life-Wit.aspx http://stachemedia.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/schwag-stache-win-a-daisy-rock-guitar-signed-by-manika/ http://www.zimbio.com/Manika/articles/dwzFVyhJxOT/One+Direction+Fun+Facts+Pop+Singer+Manika http://www.girlslife.com/print/2012/06/08/Nail-1D-opener-Manikas-awesome-mani.aspx http://www.cambio.com/2012/07/19/which-reality-tv-star-is-in-manikas-new-music-video-watch/ http://celebsecrets4u.com/2011/07/18/get-to-know-teen-artist-manika/ http://ventsmagazine.com/one-direction-tourmate-manika-steps-into-the-spotlight-premieres-new-music-video/ http://923now.cbslocal.com/2012/05/25/whos-opening-for-one-direction-meet-manika-and-olly-murs/ http://www.onedirectionhotspot.com/Blog/June-2012.aspx?page=4 http://frontrowliveent.com/manika-good-girls-official-music-video/ http://www.ultgate.com/plus/tag/manika/ http://samanthalui.wordpress.com/2012/06/10/recap-one-direction-concert/ http://www.themagazine.ca/2012/06/02/one-direction-steals-torontos-heart/#.UXru481bIYA http://www.wattpad.com/7989913-live-while-we're-young-one-direction-8-opening#.UXruTM1bIYA http://official1dus.wordpress.com/2012/07/13/manika-reveals-backstage-secrets/ http://kiss951.cbslocal.com/tag/manika/ http://popdirt.com/manika-good-girls-video/102137/ http://mix1051.cbslocal.com/tag/manika/ http://wevegotyoucovered.buzznet.com/photos/buzznetexclusivemani/list/?p=1&l=d http://theyouthspot.theurbanmusicscene.com/2011/10/04/poprb-singer-manikas-cant-let-you-go-is-mak.aspx http://blog.concertkatie.com/2012/05/one-direction-at-mohegan-sun.html http://motorcityblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/manika-in-town-with-one-direction.html http://www.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=3756682 http://hangout.altsounds.com/news/151064-directions-opening-act-manika-releases-good-girls.html http://www.worthpoint.com/blog-entry/celebrity-collector-pop-star-manika-mini-teddy-bears http://stachemedia.wordpress.com/category/manika/ http://video.answers.com/behind-the-scenes-with-manika-the-2011-vmas-517152860 http://www.takingovertheuniverse.net/2012/06/album-review-manika-middle-of-hollywood.html http://wevegotyoucovered.buzznet.com/photos/buzznetexclusivemani/?id=68211434 http://entertainment-everyday.blogspot.com/2011/07/manika-interview-72811.html http://www.allaccess.com/top40-mainstream/artist-info/q/id/3551/manika http://www.andpop.com/2011/06/17/an-interview-with-manika/ http://www.fanlala.com/news/artist-alert-manika http://www.620wtmj.com/multimedia/videos/?bctid=1157648445001 http://www.fashionweekdaily.com/chic-report/article/manika-makes-a-splash-on-the-ama-red-carpet http://ifelicious.com/2011/08/23/interview-with-rising-young-pop-singer-manika-currently-on-shop-til-you-rock-tour/ (COMMENTS) 1.Ron says: September 4, 2011 at 7:05 pm I will be one fanatic of Manika. She’s http://www.popstaronline.com/manika-takes-a-break-from-her-tour-with-one-direction/ 4. 5. http://www.teenspot.com/spotlight/rising-artist-manika/ 6. http://www.girlslife.com/post/2012/06/19/Manika-talks-fashion-fellas-and-fans.aspx?cp=all 7. http://www.kidzworld.com/article/25835-manika-qa 8. http://blog.scholastic.com/ink_splot_26/2012/01/manika.html 9. http://www.bopandtigerbeat.com/2011/07/exclusive-meet-fresh-new-star-manika/ 10. http://oceanup.com/2012/july/21/manika-good-girls-music-video 11. http://www.twistmagazine.com/2012/05/twist-exclusive-twist-chats-with-one-directions-opening-act-manika-win-it.html 12. http://www.wambie.com/tuttifrutti_us/news/BACKSTAGE_SECRETS_FROM_1D_S_OPENING_ACT_ON_TOUR-new_en-11327.html 13. http://www.j-14.com/2012/08/j-14-video-manikas-good-girls.html 14. http://www.tophitvideos.com/2013/01/manika-way-official-music-video/ 15. http://www.sugarscape.com/main-topics/lads/743022/zayn-malik-strange-boy 16. http://shelby.tv/video/youtube/VOp_WzmYwN0/manika-feat-lil-twist-just-can-t-let-you-go 17. http://xlouisthetommotomlinsonx.tumblr.com/post/27154637096/smileforstyles-manika-and-niall

Popyoularity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kb-2a04PHsU

2012 Hard Rock: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qtp-_4CXmd4

POP STAR Christmas: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hBzdEDmhc4

The Click Clique: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSvEWO3jue8

Popstar! Magazine 12 in 12 VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxXyCsnBsWQ

Miss ME: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py3iCs3OXGc

CelebSecrets: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CH4OAti5HRw

Shop Til You Rock: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xJAyzKJowg

CODY SIMPSON'S: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxB8bd-NqUc

2011 American Music Awards: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-Zr4SFFqs8

2011 VMA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJe1MAl5sZA

Audobon Middle School: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LifQ2DlLulE

Halo Halo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwLxnRo80XQ

17 Mag: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVCqSmJ_37s

StarCam's: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8vlcvKwQ60

Pacific Rim: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdY3UkqlisM

tumblir: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDAGTpVaeeg

Twist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIgi1dexYIY

Twist 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHKwGeIbmA4

Fanlala: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rhOsP2L5lY

BOP tv: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydGo49TVUdw

Paris Hilton: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQ1QtW6qgNE

LogaLive: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kM7BuAxLW_w

NARM: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Au5LK6Ba_Kk

CelebSecrets4U Hot Video Alert http://celebsecrets4u.com/2012/08/04/hot-music-video-alert-manikas-good-girls/

Manika on BSC Kids http://www.bsckids.com/2012/08/one-directions-opening-act-manika-releases-good-girls/

Manika on Popyoularity http://popyoularity.com/manika-video-good-girls-2/

Good Girls Video on MissExlusive.com http://missexclusive.com/news/manika-good-girls-video

Manika on J14! http://www.j-14.com/2012/08/j-14-video-manikas-good-girls.html

on Popstar! http://www.popstaronline.com/check-out-good-girls-by-manika/

http://www.cambio.com/2012/07/19/which-reality-tv-star-is-in-manikas-new-music-video-watch/

Meet Manika, One Direction’s Tour-Mate (My Musical Mind) http://www.metrolyrics.com/blog/2012/06/20/my-musical-mind-manika/

5 ‘One Direction’ Tour Secrets Revealed: Celebuzz Backstage With Opening Act http://www.celebuzz.com/2012-06-19/5-things-you-dont-know-about-one-direction-celebuzz-goes-backstage-with-opening-act-manika-exclusive/

The Girl on Tour With One Direction, Manika! http://www.teen.com/2012/06/18/music/new-music/manika-one-direction-interview-single/

TWIST Chats With One Direction's Opening Act Manika http://www.twistmagazine.com/2012/05/twist-exclusive-twist-chats-with-one-directions-opening-act-manika-win-it.html

MANIKA TAKES A BREAK FROM HER TOUR WITH ONE DIRECTION http://www.popstaronline.com/manika-takes-a-break-from-her-tour-with-one-direction/

Manika in Town With One Direction, Friday, June 1, Fox Theatre http://motorcityblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/manika-in-town-with-one-direction.html

One Direction Tourmate MANIKA Steps Into The Spotlight + Premieres New Music Video http://ventsmagazine.com/one-direction-tourmate-manika-steps-into-the-spotlight-premieres-new-music-video/

Buzznet Exclusive: Meet One Direction's Talented New Gal Pal Manika! http://wevegotyoucovered.buzznet.com/user/journal/17252172/buzznet-exclusive-meet-one-directions/

Ifelicious Thoughts http://ifelicious.com/2012/05/18/pop-sensation-manika-touring-with-one-direction-releasing-single-good-girls-and-debut-ep-in-june/

One Direction Updates http://onedirectionupdates.wordpress.com/2012/07/09/photos-manikaofficial-supporting-act-with-one-direction-during-their-uan-tour/manika/

MANIKA Featured in OK! Magazine http://stachemedia.wordpress.com/tag/manika-2/

Nail 1D opener Manika's awesome http://www.girlslife.com/post/2012/06/08/Nail-1D-opener-Manikas-awesome-mani.aspx?cp=all

One Direction Exposed! http://celebs.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981417566

One Direction In Concert WITH MANIKA http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/UkJIcyM3PWj/One+Direction+In+Concert

One Direction steals Toronto's heart http://www.themagazine.ca/2012/06/02/one-direction-steals-torontos-heart/#.UQhdKM1bJ0c

The Girl on Tour With One Direction, Manika! http://www.teen.com/2012/06/18/music/new-music/manika-one-direction-interview-single/

CosmoGirl http://www.seventeen.com/cosmogirl/manika-showcase-performance

one direction connection http://onedirectionconnection.com/2012/08/manika-talks-one-direction-on-tour/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.210.64.17 (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC) — 108.210.64.17 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Way too many votes with poor rationales. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 13:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 13:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find enough substantial coverage on the search engines to see how this individual meets notability criteria. Press releases and interviews (which are pretty much on the same level, both being primary sources), don't establish notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Las Vegas Review-Journal and Latina articles are not "press releases and interviews". These two reputable sources provide "substantial coverage" about the subject. They are independent in that they have no affiliation with the subject. Cunard (talk) 17:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. The Latina and Review-Journal pieces are both based on interviews with the subject. Chase (talk | contributions) 18:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Based on" is the key phrase. They include quotes from the subject but are not only interviews in the format of:
Publication: [question]
Manika: [response]
Publication: [question]
Manika: [answer]
The former can be used to establish notability because most of the content is from the independent publication. The latter cannot because most of the content is from the subject. Cunard (talk) 18:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked the community to review the guideline's interpretation at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Does an independent publication become no longer independent because the journalist spoke with the subject?. Cunard (talk) 18:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) An article based on an interview and a Q&A are the same thing. The information is coming from the exact same source. And to answer your point above, which I actually already did, there's a difference between using interviews to source an article about a notable artist, and basing an article about a non-notable singer around 2-3 interviews with reliable publications, with no other sources to flesh the article out except for press releases, social media, IMDb, blogs, etc. I'm seriously starting to wonder if you're trolling. In any case, this will be my final reply to you here because I've made my point. Chase (talk | contributions) 18:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles says a subject is notable if she:
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.
Coverage in Las Vegas Review-Journal and Latina meet that criteria.
From Wikipedia:Third-party sources (which is linked to from Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles):
A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter.
Since the only involvement the publications have with Manika is "in their capacity as a reporter", they remain independent despite having interviewed her.
Cunard (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manika has also been covered in Vents Magazine in addition to Las Vegas Review-Journal and Latina.
June 2013 article: http://manika-music.com/news/manika-featured-in-vents-magazine/^{WebCite and WebCite}
February 2015 article: http://manika-music.com/news/manika-featured-in-vents-magazine-2/^{WebCite and WebCite}.
Cunard (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are too many primary and self published sources, but here are some sources that could further establish notability.

A biography published by Rovi, reprinted on Billboard Magazine[10]
Billboard Magazine feature video [11]
Billboard Magazine Single chart #88 [12] (Passes WP:MUSBIO #3
Time Magazine (Time for Kids) interview [13]
Both albums on AllMusic. [14] [15]
Support for radio spins on BillboardBiz.[16] (supports WP:MUSBIO #11)
Feature article on Latina, site appears to be RS and also mentions her book.[17]
The Exciting Adventures of Boo Ten Tender Lessons Author: Manika ISBN 9780911752991
I see no problem with the Las Vegas Review Journal Review feature. [18]

In this case, the interviews are not self-published, reading the complete footnote[19] in WP:MUSBIO #1, clearly states that, "The published works must be someone else writing about the musician, ensemble, composer, or lyricist, or their works." So, the non-self published interviews do go to WP:MUSBIO #1. The article needs work, but that is WP:ATD "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." 009o9 (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent research, 009o9! http://www.billboard.com/artist/1496571/manika/biography from Matt Collar of Rovi is a very strong source and an excellent find. Cunard (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huffington Post Celebrity Collector: MANIKA - Reyne Haines 009o9 (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Huffington Post is another strong source that provides several paragraphs of coverage about her before the question-and-answer with her.
Two of the strongest sources you found:
1. Collar, Matt (2015). "Manika – Biography". Rovi. Archived from the original on 2015-09-07. Retrieved 2015-09-07 – via Billboard.
2. Haines, Reyne (2012-04-10). "Celebrity Collector: Manika". The Huffington Post. Archived from the original on 2015-09-07. Retrieved 2015-09-07.
These two sources, in conjunction with the Las Vegas Review-Journal and Latina articles, clearly establish that she passes Wikipedia:Notability (music) and Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP

Manika is definitely notable, internationally renowned blogger PEREZ HILTON Perez Hilton even writes about her. This is a 3rd party source reliable source and international media coverage… NOT an interview. Plus she now has a collab with the extremely notable Tyga Tyga as well. http://perezhilton.com/2015-06-18-manika-byobugatti 166.170.47.222 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC) — 166.170.47.222 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Being posted on Perez Hilton's blog is not an indicator of notability. Perez is a member of pop music website ATRL and he saw this thread posted about "B.Y.O.Bugatti" by a member mocking it and Manika's fake social media followers: http://atrl.net/forums/showthread.php?t=801809 AyanP (talk) 03:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)AyanP[reply]

Keep - Easily passes both WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC and indicated by the sources by 009o9, Cunard and Bondegezou. The nom seems to take the presence of an article on this young woman personally. Strange. The carpet tagging of the article by the nom is difficult to see as a good faith effort. --Oakshade (talk) 23:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Oakshade for reviewing the sources. I agree that the carpet tagging of the article is "difficult to see as a good faith effort". By "carpet tagging", I think you mean to link to Wikipedia:Tag bombing or Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems#Over-tagging instead of Wikipedia:Citation overkill? Cunard (talk) 00:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Tag bombing is a better link to describe the nom's actions in the article and I changed it. Thanks!--Oakshade (talk) 02:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone here is "taking the presence of this article personally" except for all these randoms (clearly Manika and her manager father) who keep editing the article and removing Bondegezou's great edits. Most of us don't actually have a problem keeping the article. In fact, I've spent the past month trying to edit the article to make it neutral and have reputable info. The problem is that the "facts" being edited into are NOT reliable. For an example, the current edit claims "I Might Go Lesbian" is on Top 40 radio. It is NOT. Check AllAccess and Mediabase and the song has zero adds and no impact date. Before you guys came, the article was a disaster and full of false information from her interviews. I had to keep editing the article multiple times to clean it up and make it neutral as possible. Others noticed and that's how the pending deletion arose: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Oshwah#Manika_page AyanP (talk) 03:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)AyanP[reply]

I don't know who tagged the article for notability, but they messed with a someone who has 3 million FaceBook followers.[20] No doubt that there is going to be a lot of drive-by's dropping off non RS sources when their artist's article is tagged for notability. Perhaps the best thing to do now is to take the best copy, sandbox it, fix the references and then paste it over what is now in the mainspace? From there we can revert drive-by's and get tough on the the 3 revert rule. 009o9 (talk) 05:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are certainly problems with the article. The way to deal with those problems is not to delete the article, but to work on making the article better. We must also remember to assume good faith about the motives of other editors: they may be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's practices, but that does not mean their actions are malicious. Semi-protection from IP editors can be requested and may be a good way forward. Bondegezou (talk) 09:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: And, honestly, a slap from the Frozen Trout of Seafood Justice. Since when do interviews not count as "substantive coverage" just because they're interviews? That's a peculiar -- and personal -- interpretation of the GNG that is nowhere found in Wikipedia guidelines or policy. Whether she also passes MUSICBIO, the solidity (or not) of her fanbase, the importance of her label, or how many angry SPAs may or may not descend on us, all these are irrelevant. GNG pass, period, end of statement. Ravenswing 11:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She meets the GNG as stated by Ravenswing here. The article is a complete mess, and needs to be weeded of the chaff and fan page nonsense, but that does not mean she's not-notable for inclusion. Wildthing61476 (talk) 11:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup, though attempting to do so is making my head hurt. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is really the sort of article that our notability criteria should exclude; as a minor flash-in-the-pan popstar. Nonetheless, the current guidelines are the current guidelines, and as Cunard shows she meets them. Special thanks to User:Ritchie333 for his work in cleaning a lot of the promotional cruft out of the article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Oh, I agree with you. I have a dislike of people choosing AfD as the venue to debate the merits of WP:V, the GNG or the various SNGs. If the naysayers want to change those policies, their talk pages are where the argument needs to be taken. Ravenswing 17:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agree that the article is a mess but the chart positions do suggest some degree of notability -RoseL2P (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting. I came here following a request for help at WP:AN, and I can easily understand why the request was made: everything here is a huge mess. With that in mind, I'm closing this as a TNT delete. The majority of voters supported keeping, and I'm generally discounting the delete voters because the keep voters (who came later) presented evidence of sourcing that the earlier delete voters said didn't exist. However, the keep voters' position is well summed up by Ritchie333's comment, "cleanup, though attempting to do so is making my head hurt". In other words, the page is so hopelessly irreparable that the only solution is to blow it up and start over. While I'm going to delete the page, you could take it to WP:REFUND and ask for userfication (be sure to cite my closing comment, since AFD'd pages normally won't be restored there), or I will restore it to userspace at anyone's request. Please don't do this, however, unless you want to have the citations: you need to rewrite the article from scratch. And finally, if anyone tags the page for G4 speedy deletion, remind them that the criterion's for reposts of deleted content, not for new pages on the same topic, especially when the AFD is closed with a suggestion to write a new page. Nyttend (talk) 23:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Iraqi Beauty Pageants. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 16:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Iraq[edit]

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

I got involved with this article when I noticed an edit war playing out. It was going backwards and forwards between this version and the current one. The problem is, I don't think that either of them demonstrate that the subject passes the general notability guideline. The only source in the previous version wasn't reliable, and the sources in the current version are either unreliable or about different events.

I did find a few promising sources online,[21][22][23][24][25] but there isn't a decent overview of the contests, so I can't tell if the articles are talking about the same contest or different ones. If they are different ones, which seems likely given Iraq's recent political upheaval, then I am not sure that there is enough material there to support an article. Plus, the recent edit war seems to be caused (as far as I can tell) by a real-life dispute about the history surrounding the contest and which one is the "real" Miss Iraq. I originally wondered whether there was the scope for a page like Beauty pageants in Iraq, but I think that would also require better sources. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note that a previous version of this article was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mister Iraq. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think its fair for Wikipedia to delete an article just because someone is abusing it for many years now. Though we never intended to create one until this year's edition of the contest until we saw this user posting misinformation by creating this page again on 22nd August. Wikipedia editors and administrators should keep in mind that the user has previously tried to create pages such as "Miss Iraq" "Mister Iraq" "Talat Model Management" "Iraqi Model Searches" all of which were deleted. They were made using sockpuppet accounts "nimrod1976" "Mriraq" and Mr. Stradivarius has provided you a link to that. (I have already filed a claim for sockpuppet for "missiraq1947" at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/missiraq1947.Pageantscambuster (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe this article should be deleted because it is inaccurate, it is promoting a Miss Baghdad 2014 winner as Miss Iraq, Iraq's Maiden of Beauty 1972 as Miss Iraq , it is an article about Miss Baghdad and not Miss Iraq. The promoter of this pageant claims endorsement and registration with the Ministry of Culture, it is important to state that the Ministry of Culture has not endorsed such a contest nor is it affiliated with it, there is no mention of it. The logo is not registered, the information contained is conpletely inaccurate. I believe that Nimrod1980 and pageantscambuster should be banned and blocked for good, the latter has breached wikipedia rules so many times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missiraq1947 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note Pageantscambuster and Missiraq1947 have now both been blocked for sockpuppetry (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mriraq). — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 09:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While the article is a mess right now, and the history is a big can of worms, there's been enough reliable source coverage mentioning 'Miss Iraq' events over the years that I feel the article shouldn't deleted. I can see the argument for maybe paring it down to a stub or something at the moment, but that sort of thing is quite different than just getting rid of the whole thing. As a complicating factor, we do have an article generically about beauty pageants held in Iraq: Iraqi Beauty Pageants. Not sure what to do with that other page. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I suggest merging Miss Iraq with Iraqi Beauty Pageants. Biscuittin (talk) 09:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good idea to me. The sources in that article also look a bit suspect, but with all the sources listed above I believe we can demonstrate notability for that topic, at least. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I have added a merge tag. Biscuittin (talk) 16:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I voted "Keep" above, I'd be fine with a merge, personally. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 13:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Iraqi Beauty Pageants. Kraxler (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2015 (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. Jujutacular (talk) 00:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Samir Chreim[edit]

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

There is some notability, but most links are either public relations originated articles or articles, mentioning the company, but no the person himself. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 12:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 12:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 12:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject has not received significant coverage in independent sources. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches found nothing excitingly good aside from passing and minor links at Books, News and browser. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 12 September 2015 (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. Mkdw ^talk 03:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zhang Deli[edit]

Lacks notability. WP: POV issues. Article seems to have been created and heavily edited by article subject. Reference search yields next to nothing. Massive link farm in Exhibition section leads me to believe this is a support page for articles linked to in that section. New Media Theorist (talk) 02:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did spend twenty minutes trying to improve it, which is when I noticed all of the above issues. New Media Theorist (talk) 02:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing better and all I found was this. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - It's possible that there are Chinese language sources about this person out there. Still, from the searching that I've done, it appears that they're just not really notable. I could be convinced otherwise, but I lean to just deleting the article. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2015 (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. Discographies are standard when a sufficient number of discs have been released. Content decisions must be debated on the pertaining talk page. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inna discography[edit]

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

No proper sources, suggest redirect to Inna. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 08:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As with all Inna albums and songs, the sourcing is atrocious. She apparently has nothing like a press agent working to make official announcements. Instead, there are interviews she has with bloggers, and the contradictory things she says are interpreted different ways by other bloggers. Huge questions remain about this or that album being official, or what is its name. Relevant discussions include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LatINNA (Inna Album) (deleted), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Romantic Collection (deleted), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Summer Days (EP) (merged). We have always had great difficulty figuring out what this artist is doing, because the sources are so bad. Binksternet (talk) 08:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I see that you nominated the article 'Inna discography' for deletion. Well, it contains much information about her chart peaks and certifications throughout her seven years of career. You're right about some dubious links, but do not delete the article immediately(!!!!!!); let me know what poblems you found on Inna's discography page, so I can fix it for you!! I can explain you the things you discussed in "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inna discography": "LatINNA" is not the title of one of her albums: It is just the former name of her now-renamed full-length record INNA (The title was simply renamed from LatINNA to INNA). There is no album by her named "The Romantic Collection", it's just an unofficially collection of her tracks that premiered on an illegal website. And finally, the "Summer Days EP" was supposed to be released, but never was. Thus, most of the track released from it were included on Inna's actual album INNA. Have any questions?- Then simply ask me! --Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While the article needs extensive work to conform to the generally accepted style guidelines, a reduction in the lead, and cleaning of fancruft, I'm seeing enough reliable sources backing up discography-related content to satisfy. Azealia911 _talk 01:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as AfD is not cleanup. The lead needs to be reduced and fancruft needs to be removed, but the core of the article (i.e. the list of albums, singles, music videos, charting positions) looks valid and eventually easily fixable in its few inaccurancies. Cavarrone 15:53, 7 September 2015 (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 This Grave Is Too Small For Me. Mkdw ^talk 03:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mali mi je ovaj grob[edit]

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

Upcoming movie with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article barely even asserts notability, and an upcoming 15-minute film with a €50 budget will hardly break the threshold even when once released. The play by Biljana Srbljanović is notable, but it's not what this article is about, so WP:TNT applies even if someone wants to create an article about it. No such user (talk) 06:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -As stated above, it would make more sense for the writer(s) of this article to create an article about the play, and add the film to it. Notablity has not been established for the film ABF99 (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I went ahead and created the article This Grave Is Too Small For Me. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add that, looking at the information that we have about the upcoming film, I think that this article on it should be deleted. The title should be redirected over to the parent page for the stage production. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:11, 10 September 2015 (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. Mkdw ^talk 15:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jonny ClockWorks[edit]

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

Sure there are far worse articles (especially fabricated ones which I search for hungrily) but my searches found nothing to suggest better improvement with the best results, here and here. He's accomplished quite a bit but, again, there are sourcing issues for which I'm not seeing enough possible improvement. Pinging the editors I think would be most interested, @DGG, NatGertler, and Mandarax: (a few other editors I saw are not active). SwisterTwister talk 23:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - some local coverage, including locally-feeling coverage on a national site. I'm not finding signs that it goes further than that. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom and above editor. The coverage doesn't rise to the level of notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:47, 15 September 2015 (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. Mkdw ^talk 03:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chadwick Hagan[edit]

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

Suggesting deletion as this appears to be an autobiography which lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications. Subject is an author, so while there are articles to be found written by this person, I was unable to find such articles written about this person. As always, please contact me on my talk page if sources are located to the contrary. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete no evidence of notability, independent or otherwise. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep evidence of notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Econ48 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC) — Econ48 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft and userfy to userspace if needed as my searches found no better coverage. SwisterTwister talk 22:35, 13 September 2015 (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. Mkdw ^talk 15:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quinn Shephard[edit]

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

Delete: non-notable actress. Way too soon. Quis separabit? 23:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep to redirect to Unaccompanied Minors for now as she's certainly has several roles including Person of Interest (where I'm most familiar with her) but I'm split because she's getting the roles but not enough for solid independent notability and she may be best known for that film at this time. SwisterTwister talk 07:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only sources I'm finding are pretty much all mentions, ATM like Quis separabit? I'm inclined to think this is still WP:TOOSOON, Fails GNG anyway. –Davey2010^Talk 18:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability just doesn't seem established here CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:45, 15 September 2015 (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. Mkdw ^talk 03:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yuka Ishikawa[edit]

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

This skater doesn't meet any notability criteria, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability and her results at http://www.isuresults.com/bios/isufs00008232.htm Hergilei (talk) 23:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NSKATE and no coverage to pass GNG Kraxler (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:05, 7 September 2015 (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. Mkdw ^talk 03:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miruku Matsushita[edit]

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

This skater doesn't meet any notability criteria, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability and her results at http://www.isuresults.com/bios/isufs00010385.htm Hergilei (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NSKATE and no coverage to pass GNG Kraxler (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:05, 7 September 2015 (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. Stifle (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

National Labour Party (Hungary)[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability. The article was created by myself in September 2011. Since then the party could not run in any parliamentary elections, they had only some candidates during municipal elections in Győr. The party's homepage (now it is not avaliable was last edited in 2012 and the party itself was also disbanded by the Prosecutor's Office according to the the valid legislation as the party did not run in the last two national elections. The Hungarian-language article about the party was also deleted in April 2014. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I also would like to ask for deletion of two fair-use images, which illustrate the article: this and this. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage in reliable sources AusLondonder (talk) 03:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has several citations to sources, no evidence they're unreliable SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Article contains seven citations, let's see: 1, the party's program (dead-link, party's homapage is not avaliable); 2, homepage of the national court which registered the party in 2009 (dead-link) 3, a news about a "skinhead" protest, where, among others, this party also participated (dead-link); 4, a local news portal's report about the foundation of the party (dead-link); 5, a "neo-Nazi protest", where several movements etc. participated, National Labour Party mentioned marginally (dead-link); 6, a party statement (own homepage, dead-link); 7, a local news portal's article correction and retraction (dead-link). Technically, the article is unsourced and had formerly contained marginal reports from local newspapers or the party's statements. Since 2010, there were no any reports about the party. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. By even the article creator's testimony, the subject organization has done nothing notable nor, now that it is disbanded, will it ever do anything notable. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guru Randhawa[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG.Is an upcoming singer a case of WP:TOOSOON as well. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Pharaoh of the Wizards

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep has a couple of newspaper appearances suggesting notability. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now (draft and userfy if needed) as my searches found no better results than some at News. SwisterTwister talk 23:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - might be WP:TOOSOON, searches did not turn up enough to meet notability guidelines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage present, for me, doesn't constitute enough WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:ANYBIO or GNG. Mkdw ^talk 16:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Mind uploading. Sam Walton (talk) 10:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded astronaut[edit]

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

A neologism of questionable popularity, cited from a single author. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence there's anything to this - David Gerard (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, but rename to something less neological, like "Mind uploading and spaceflight". It indeed seems like that author is the single one using that term - the subject however has enough coverage for it to be featured (e.g. see these: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). --Fixuture (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Might as well start a new article under that name - David Gerard (talk) 11:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you find reliable sources which discuss this concept, otherwise this will be WP:SYNTH: "a" + "bc". This current article is based solely on two blogs of the same person. Not to say that even the Golden Age of Science Fiction have already beaten the author mightily: plenty of stories how an alien starship arrives and then bam! aliens are 'uploaded' to the Earth without any boredom of sitting in a 'ship at all, in any forms: into your brain, into mechanical devices, into animals, etc., etc. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well the sources I listed discuss exactly this concept. But as said they don't use the term "uploaded astronaut" hence my suggestion to rename it. Will further look into this later (probably this weekend) and maybe also dig up some more sources in addition to those listed above.

Not to say that even the Golden Age of Science Fiction have already beaten the author mightily: plenty of stories how an alien starship arrives and then bam! aliens are 'uploaded' to the Earth without any boredom of sitting in a 'ship at all, in any forms: into your brain, into mechanical devices, into animals, etc., etc.

Well he's not claiming to be the first having that idea (and mind you, it's no contest; the article actually doesn't even mention him). That's another reason for notability by the way. I also think that the "In science fiction" section could be expanded by quite a bit (or maybe even merged into the lede right away). Other than that I doubt that many writers of the Golden Age of Science Fiction had a concept close to nowadays "mind uploading" (the concept basically elaborated in co-ordinance with the technological development in the realm of IT and the neuroscientific advances [even though both aren't even close to making the concept of mind uploading feasible in the near future - it's about the imagination...applied in science fiction and elsewhere]). --Fixuture (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

re "technological development" - you are talking about a specific implementation. Implementation may vary, but the basic idea is the same: mind changes its incarnation in other location. And I fail to see what's the nontrivial difference: whether it is a spaceship or the very destination or a computer game or whatever.Staszek Lem (talk) 01:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the mind uploading page given that this information would be given the best weight as a few sentences or something over there CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to mind uploading using sources like those found by Fixuture, but use general terms rather than this neologism. Mind uploading is such a huge paradigm-shifting subject that it allows for any number of "mind uploading and _____" applications/problematics/hypotheticals. So there may be a good cause to create Mind uploading applications, mind uploading and society, or some better-titled article at some point -- this doesn't seem like the basis for it though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or maybe merge to mind uploading. Seems like a legit search term, and this is a legit application of the concept. I'm not strictly opposed to a merge, but I think it would be better to add a brief summary from a better source than those currently in the article. kurzweilai.net doesn't strike me as the best available source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article doesn't contain any real information, just the idea that several hypothetical technologies that don't exist and won't exist any time soon could be applied to space travel. I'd suggest merging it into something, but there's so little information here beyond the sources, that there's just not much to merge. ---ssd (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with mind uploading. Artw (talk) 03:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bliss Industries[edit]

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

Article for a non-notable local company from January 2006 and my searches found nothing better than passing mentions. This could have been speedied or PROD'd but I wanted comments. SwisterTwister talk 18:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete not a shred of notability. mAy be it manufactures important things, but so do zillions of factories worldwide. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as above. Non-notable feed mill...New Media Theorist (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2015 (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. Mkdw ^talk 03:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hamish Jenkinson[edit]

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

Not notable. Vanity page used for self promotion elsewhere on internet (subject's Twitter bio). nothing encyclopaedic, just a lot of name dropping (much worse before I tidied up in May) Rayman60 (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches found nothing explicitly better. SwisterTwister talk 19:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a young non-profit administrator, very ordinary. Unless something comes up in the media that discusses his relationship with his mentor, I see nothing notable about him. Bearian (talk) 03:26, 12 September 2015 (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) Kraxler (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soho walk up[edit]

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

Unrelated sources. Eat me, I'm a red bean (discuss • contribs) 13:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not contravene any of the policies and guidelines listed as reasons to delete an article. All statements are factual and all cite references contain reinvent material to back up the statements. There an no unrelated sources. A Soho walk up is an entity that people discuss and visit and it is therefore something that one would expect to be able to find out about in an encyclopaedia. A simple Google of the subject quickly demonstrates its existence and that it is a part of London culture. For all of the above reasons I reject this call for deletion.--Timnic (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that as well as being factual, the article's subject has to be notable.--A bit iffy (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't understand the nominator's sole argument of "unrelated sources". Each of the five references at the time of nomination appear relevant. (It does concern me that some are from people's blogs so would fail WP:RS, but I think that's a side issue.) As User:Timnic (NB: the originator of the article) pointed out, Google searches do indicate the concept of a walk-up exists, and although I feel such results are on the weak side as sources, my feeling is the subject has some inherent notability.--A bit iffy (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering whether the article should be renamed. First, perhaps there ought to be a hyphen in "walk up". Second, presumably walk-ups exist elsewhere in England. So maybe it should be renamed simply "walk-up".--A bit iffy (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)--A bit iffy (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:03, 7 September 2015 (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. Mkdw ^talk 03:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Govind Bhargav[edit]

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

Maybe it's the language and country barriers but I think not as it seems simple from the information that he's not notable and there's not much else; my searches also found nothing at all and this could've been moved elsewhere had there been a target (orphan). SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing notable at all. Delete per WP:BLP and WP:GNG-- . Shlok _{talk .} 07:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:55, 7 September 2015 (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. Mkdw ^talk 16:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perr&Knight[edit]

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

Not notable firm, and promotional article. � One of the top 20 is a very specialized branch of an industry is not notability. Repeated claims to be the "market leader"without nay documentation for them. Having employees who have professional certification is not notability. Trying to have an article on this basis is promotional. DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Ratewatch tool they created is well covered for an industry of 2.5 million employed. To me, this is interesting stuff. I've done a rewrite Talk:Perr&Knight#Tone_suggestions_to_resolve_AfD_nomination_concerns that puts the notability in the lede, offloads a sentence into the infobox and I think changes to the tone. I did put this through AfC, but I've got no COI in this article. --Cheers-- 009o9 (talk) 10:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

is there any third party source for that? DGG ( talk ) 20:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent sources, they might be known in the insurance trade, but have not acquired any notability Kraxler (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now until better coverage cancan be achieved and the best results I found were this. SwisterTwister talk 22:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The size of an organization, while taken into account, shouldn't be the sole arbiter of notability. Searches showed nothing which seems to meet the notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:35, 15 September 2015 (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. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thunaivan[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM Flat Out (talk) 02:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDAFD: Thunaivan "Thunaivan 1969" "Thunaivan Tamil" "M. A. Thirumugam" "A. V. M. Rajan" "Sowkar Janaki" "K. V. Mahadevan"

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

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

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

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

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

Keep even though this is a pre-internet Indian film, and difficult to source, WP:BEFORE shows the involvement of Tamil notables and the topic meeting WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:55, 7 September 2015 (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. Mkdw ^talk 16:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

American Dream (Dipset album)[edit]

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

Non notable compilation mixtape. Fails WP:NALBUMS. Koala15 (talk) 15:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Dipset as my searches found nothing better than the currently listed links. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable album just released (no charting, etc) (Toomass (talk) 00:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Delete - as per nom and above editors. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Searches turned up nothing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:37, 15 September 2015 (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. Mkdw ^talk 03:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

K. C. Abdullah Moulavi[edit]

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

Non notable lacks reliable sources ScholarM (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Moulavi was the most prominent leader of Jamaat-e-Islami in Kerala state. I'll try to include more sources to the article. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 17:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 17:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough sources required by WP:BIO and even if his title is notable, it doesn't necessary mean he is notable too. --Badnaam (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a chief mufti, imam, or the equivalent, in a nation-state. The article is filled with puffery and peacock language - one of the founders, one of the leaders, contributed to, etc. - that means nothing. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Clergy. Bearian (talk) 03:31, 12 September 2015 (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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MKO Abiola Statue[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG its nothing but a WP:COATRACK. Ref 1, ref 2 and ref 3 are the only reliable sources I can see but its says nothing about the statue. Ref 4 and ref 5 is garbage. Ref 6 and ref 7 is an evidence that the statue exist like any other common statue in the world. The context of the article is about Moshood Abiola and nothing significant can be rewriting from the so called "statue to merit a stand-alone article. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: First off, the article beats WP:COATRACK because it describes the structural description of the statue, the reason why the statue was designed and basic knowledge of who MKO Abiola is (for those who know nothing about him). Furthermore, references cited are inline, reliable and secondary. You should have a rethink about the nomination of the article. OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 07:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I usually don't expect anything different from a "Speed keep", "Strong Keep", "Keep" or "merge" and sometime "redirect" vote from an article creator when their ridiculous articles get nominated for deletion through WP:AfD because editors rarely want their articles or contributions deleted. By the way, what do you mean by (1)" You should rethink of the nomination"? (2)references cited are inline, reliable and secondary? You probably do not understand the rationale for deletion. Do you? Wikipedia cannot have a stand-alone article for a subject simply because its exist. I think my rationale for deletion is clear enough. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article obviously passes WP:V and WP:N. I also recommend that the nominator reads a public art contributor's notability criteria for public arts in 2012 for more insight. While there are other sources regarding this sculpture not cited in the article, the article is viable, irrespective of the sources provided. Besides, there are numerous public art stub articles with little or no sources that are notable in their own right. The sculpture is about a revered businessman and politician martyred in the course of Nigeria's democratic transition. I also suggest that the creator of the article upload an image of the topic for more clarity to readers. Eruditescholar (talk) 21:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is high time you learn to use wikilinks. That being said, neither you nor the article creator understood the notability guideline or WP:N and my rationale for deletion. Firstly, the a public art contributor's notability criteria for public arts in 2012 you pointed out is irrelevant as its neither a notability guideline nor common outcomes at AfDs. It's User:Slowking4 personal view of a sculpture's notability criteria and that has no place here on Wikipedia. Secondly, I don't see how your arguments differs from WP:EXIST. I remind you that WP:V of subject's WP:N is not the same as verifiability of subject existence. What am insinuating in my rationale is that, the sources available are insufficient to me WP:GNG and to write a standalone article. What we are having here is WP:COATRACK of Moshood Abiola. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you done your research before questioning my recommendations? If you had, you would have observed that there is no specific notability criteria/guideline for Public art stubs in Wikipedia. Hence, I provided Slowking4's views which are more specific to the article and not too different from my own views. Notwithstanding, the article even passes WP:GNG which is a general notability guideline for articles in Wikipedia and it is not specific to public art articles. This article is not worth destroying in its early stages! Eruditescholar (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there is no specific notability criteria for it is an indication that it must pass WP:GNG. Is it too difficult for you to understand? However, I don't see how this one passes WP:GNG. Trust me, I won't engage in any further argument with you again because you won't stop getting it wrong (based on my past experienced with you), even if we put the entire policies and guidelines on your head, you will still be getting it wrong. I pointed you to wikilinks you refused to learn from it and I had pointed you to WP:Indentation for over 10 times yet you don't know how to use it. I just corrected your indent again. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 04:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am concerned, determining whether this public art article passes WP:GNG is left for other editors and the closing admin to decide. My knowledge of the use of wikilinks and WP:Indentation has got nothing to do with the purpose of this AfD discussion. If you have issues with me or my editing style, this is the wrong place to let it out. Eruditescholar (talk) 11:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As it seems like it passes per Erudite's arguments. I don't see this as a Coatrack situation, as there is a much larger article about the subject of the memorial itself. It would be Coatrack if there were no article about the subject himself. I would also like to remind User:Wikicology to maintain Wikipedia:Civility Theredproject (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed that I was a bit blunt here but I apologized to Eruditescholar on their talk page that same day. That being said, I don't see how this article passes WP:GNG. The fact that there is an article about the subject himself does not give his statue a freebie article on Wikipedia. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kirsty Ashton[edit]

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

This is a very nice story but my searches found no better coverage with the following being the best results: here, here, here, here and here. At best, this would be best mentioned elsewhere but there's no good target. Pinging editors Smsarmad, Titch32, Djembayz and Mr Stephen. SwisterTwister talk 23:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The best news stories are probably linked at [26]. I think this article is marginal at best. Parts of it are a close copy of [27]. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator has shown us there are books written about her and multiple news sources. Article needs copyedit, not deletion. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a quick copy-edit to remove the unverifiable and promotional text. --Slashme (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She has written two autobiographies which are available online through self-publishing services. While this technically agrees with "there are books written about her", they are not independent sources. She's a media darling with an MBA for fundraising, but I cannot see that she will have lasting notability. --Slashme (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - This is a borderline case, and she is indeed someone's who's received royal honors. However, the sporadic news coverage that I've seen involving here has been brief mentions by hometown news publications. She's written two books, but being an author doesn't make you necessarily notable. Getting major reviews of your work is the key. I feel inclined to delete the article. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm included to say that quality sources are not established here. At least not the point I'd recommend for WP:ANYBIO. Mkdw ^talk 03:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tough decision, but really there is little of note other than local coverage and the MBE which is awarded in droves.Derek Andrews (talk) 11:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above editors. Nothing but brief mentions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above users, there are only brief mentions in the sources that are cited. Also, the books written about her aren't independent. MrWooHoo (talk) 22:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey frills[edit]

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

Not significant, was already covered in Turkey meat. ɱ (talk · vbm) 15:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIC. A mention in Turkey meat is sufficient. --Djembayz (talk) 12:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 14:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Turkey meat: As-is it's only a dictionary definition. Unless someone can supply sources to write an encyclopedia article on this, it can't be kept.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is completely trivial; I'm calling for snow this Thanksgiving. Bearian (talk) 03:22, 12 September 2015 (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. Mkdw ^talk 03:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ajith Mathew[edit]

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

URLs used for References are bare URLs and there's no importance of the article. The Page creator is creating pages by submitting invalid URLs to confuse the Wikipedia. I removed the bare URLs submitted by the article creator on this article, still it doesn't shows any importance on Wikipedia. So I'm requesting to delete these kind of pages from Wikipedia, also please block the user from creating these kinds of articles. Josu4u (talk) 13:30, 24 August 2015 (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/2015 August 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First, let's assume good faith on the part of the creator. I don't have access to Indian media, so I can't really check sources on this. There is an article for the subject's album, Yelove. That article relies overly on Facebook and Youtube, unfortunately. This person is not the "star" of that album and video, but the music director. Achieving notability seems unlikely. LaMona (talk) 15:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 00:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 00:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 00:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The information given in the article is not enough for notability DGG ( talk ) 18:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scorpio (Trax song)[edit]

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

No indication on either this page or the first 100 Google results that this meets WP:NSONG. Laun chba ller 13:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:36, 7 September 2015 (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. WP:BURDEN not met to demonstrate this individual meets our notability standards. No discrimination against recreation if WP:SIGCOV can be established. Mkdw ^talk 03:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony John Barbar[edit]

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

Procedural nomination -- I declined speedy deletion. I found that this swimmer recently set the national record for Lebanon for the 50 metre butterfly. Jujutacular (talk) 12:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Jujutacular (talk) 12:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jujutacular (talk) 12:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note there is no procedural requirement to AfD declined speedies (thank goodness). All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Hike The Monicas (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a person from Boca Raton, Florida who swam for Lebanon because he couldn't get on the American team, ok, but he didn't win any medals and there is a single event with WP:ROUTINE sports coverage. I don't think there's any guideline that says that national record holders of any swimming discipline are inherently notable, and I see mostly red links at List of Lebanese records in swimming. The subject clearly fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG Kraxler (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:36, 7 September 2015 (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. Wikipedia is not a guide or means of advertisement. WP:OTHERSTUFF also prevails. Mkdw ^talk 03:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glendower Residence[edit]

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

Non-notable building. Wikipedia is not a university prospectus. TheLongTone (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entirely agree with nominator. This promotional and informational material is only relevant to students and staff of the university. It belongs on the university's own web site, not here.New Media Theorist (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page serves as the only place on the internet that people (including current and prospective students) can learn about the Residence. There is a large number of pages about university residences on Wikipedia. This includes Smuts Hall, Morrissey Hall (University of Notre Dame), Residence halls at the University of San Francisco and Sandburg Halls only to mention a few but all these pages, in one way or another, serve the exact same purpose. We should rather discuss how pages with the issues raised could be improved. Tino1b2be (talk) 13:02, 6 September 2015 (CAT)

Reply Tino1b2be, it's odd you say it's the only page on the Internet, as I found this page on the Glendower residence in about two seconds. I also wondered what it looked like inside and outside and found it here a few seconds later. So clearly this article is not the only page on the Internet about Glendower Residence. Wikipedia is not here to promote residences to potential students (the only people who are allowed into them): that's the University's job. Notability is the important criteria, and this place is not notable.New Media Theorist (talk) 03:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply New Media Theorist The examples you pointed out on the UCT pages gives no detailed information on the residence but only basic information like date of establishment and contact details. When I got accepted to the university, I had no idea what to expect at the residence I was allocated to. This is the reason why I found it necessary to create this page and create an on-line presence for the residence. It's now fairly easy to find it when you do a Google search. Not only will this page be useful for UCT students, but also visitors to the residence when it hosts events in which notable people like [[Graça Machel] and Honourable Justice Edwin Cameron are invited to attend. A residence that is visited by such high profile individuals in my opinion is notable in its own respect. According to your argument, we might as well remove all residence hall pages on Wikipedia. Tino1b2be (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2015 (CAT)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Yes it sounds like the university needs to expand its coverage! Having worked for a few universities, I know it's brutally difficult to get them to do such things. However Wikipedia is not the place for this, as the building is non-notable. Promoting its non-notable resources to future students is not the job of a global encyclopedia, it's the job of the University. Wikipedia is not a web hosting service for non-notable items like this. New Media Theorist (talk) 19:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Railways in Sydney. Stifle (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney underground railways[edit]

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

The purpose of this page is unclear. It doesn't contain any unique information, instead providing a summary of information on discrete elements of the Sydney rail network. This creates a problem in keeping the information up-to-date. From the history, it appears the original concept behind this page was to provide information on urban caving in Sydney more than anything else – hardly encyclopaedic. Unlike London, Sydney lacks a separate "underground" railway system – many suburban lines are partially in tunnel. Mqst north (talk) 11:01, 24 August 2015 (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/2015 August 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 11:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article would certainly benefit from a better title and a general spruce up, but the topic is clearly viable: lots has been written about the underground stations, underground components of the various lines, and the proposals to build new underground/semi-underground lines. Nick-D (talk) 11:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Certainly it is a viable topic, but every topic you list above has a more logical home: the station articles, the line articles, and Proposed railways in Sydney. Separating that information out here doesn't add to the reader's understanding of the topic: at best – and the article is clearly not in this state – it is a collection of content duplicated from other articles. Mqst north (talk) 11:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No real deletion nomination has been supplied. "This creates a problem in keeping the information up-to-date." So what? EVERY article can suffer with this. If the content should be merged, then suggest it on the relevant talkpages/projects. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please read my entire nomination above: the main point is that this article contains no unique content. Mqst north (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Railways in Sydney is the correct article for this information. There is no need for a separate article for lines that happened to be built underground. Gareth (talk) 02:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the information is mostly duplicated at Railways in Sydney#Underground sections and Railways in Sydney#Disused tunnels. The only question here is: Should this info remain at Railways in Sydney and the subject of this AfD be merged/redirected to there; or should the info be splitted to this article, and the two sections at Railways in Sydney have only a short sentence and a "main article" template directing the reader here. Please comment. Kraxler (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Railways in Sydney. Majority of information is already there anyway, and there is no compelling need to keep this information split in multiple separate articles.--Staberinde (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Railways_in_Sydney#Underground_sections. There are no sources that discuss this particular subject particularly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Railways in Sydney. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:13, 15 September 2015 (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. Mkdw ^talk 03:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Mehedi[edit]

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

Non-notable artist, only self-references. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 12:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 12:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Highly promotional, no good references. ABF99 (talk) 01:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Simply no signs of improvement. SwisterTwister talk 02:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He may be somewhat of a success in terms of getting fans, but he just doesn't appear to be notable really. Looking for reliable sources brings you to a dead end. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:50, 15 September 2015 (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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lemote[edit]

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

The previous AfD in 2008 had two weak keep votes. I cannot find sufficient independent reliable coverage for this to pass WP:GNG. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 07:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article needs a lot of work, no doubt. Yet there still seems to be a considerable amount of coverage of this Chinese company's various business efforts and their products: here from the MIT Technology Review, here from OS News, and here from the Chinese Review are just three examples. I don't think that this article should be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Lemote were a significant player in the effort to keep the MIPS architecture alive and relevant in small-formfactor computers. Their activity has ramifications in related areas including netbooks, Qemu etc. MarkMLl (talk) 08:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this seems acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 22:00, 13 September 2015 (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. Mkdw ^talk 03:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Munster[edit]

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

Rather open and shut case of non-notability and no good coverage as my searches found no good results at all and the two listed websites are now closed and finally there's been hardly any improvement since February 2009. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: couldn't find any good sources. Article deleted 3 times from eswiki for spam and lack of notability. Vrac (talk) 18:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply not notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:12, 10 September 2015 (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. Mkdw ^talk 03:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pear OS[edit]

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

Vague speculation with dubious sources eg YouTube about non-notable software, COI creator Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment lots of coverage on blogs and minor tech websites. The best I've been able to dig up are an article in Linux User & Developer and a very cheap article in Linux Insider (essentially, an editor copy-pasting other people's comments). It seems like this Linux distro is notable mostly for its disappearance, so maybe it should be judged by WP:NEVENT and deleted due to lack of ongoing coverage of that disappearance. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So a linux distribution that was just basically a version of Ubuntu themed to look like OSX. That was allegedly purchased twenty months ago by another company but hasn't been seen or heard from since. I'm sure there are various sites talking about this distro but I can't see how this is notable. What lasting effect has this had? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as I found nothing better than this. SwisterTwister talk 22:02, 13 September 2015 (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. Mkdw ^talk 03:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Claude Rodet[edit]

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

The references for this gentleman seem to be doubtful at best. It seems to me that he fails WP:BIO. Fiddle Faddle 05:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am unable to find sources that are not based on - ahem - differently real interpretations of the world. Guy (Help!) 15:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not contain suitable reliable sources. None of the sources are about him, a few are works by him. One of those works, L'Assiette Vitalité has a WP page that should also be deleted for the same reason of not meeting wp:GNG. Looking at him as an academic, his work is in a field that is of dubious scientific acceptability, and his association is with an unaccredited educational institution. The only article I could find by someone of this name in G-Scholar is an article on Thermo-dynamics. Perhaps someone else? LaMona (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jim "Pee Wee" Martin[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not news, and also, WP:BLP1E. I dream of horses (T) @ 05:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 05:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 05:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BLP1E. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP1E Gbawden (talk) 07:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: doesn't appear to meet the requirements of significant and lasting coverage. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination. Anotherclown (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP1E Geogene (talk) 01:05, 11 September 2015 (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 per WP:CSD#G7 after the author repeatedly replaced the article with "Hello". I took that as a delete, do it was deleted. It also likely falls under WP:CSD#A10. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rule Based Design for Manufacturability - Deep Hole Drilling[edit]

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

Should this article be redirected to Design for Manufacturability, left alone, or deleted outright? I dream of horses (T) @ 05:07, 7 September 2015 (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. Mkdw ^talk 03:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raffy Francisco[edit]

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

I considered PRODing this but, in case, there's some missing coverage from the Philippines, I nominated it instead. My searches found nothing good at all with this and this being the best results and he still seems to list work at his Twitter but I'm not seeing anything to save this article. It's worth noting it seems his website is now closed and this article has hardly changed since starting in June 2006. SwisterTwister talk 03:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA biography referenced to a dead link. A search on Highbeam (subscription reqd) turned up several passing mentions in the Manila Bulletin ([28], [29], ([30]) and most substantially indication that a video he directed was nominated for a local prize [31] but even if won that would fall well short of WP:CREATIVE criterion #4. Fails WP:BIO notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 06:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete per AllyD's findings --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:26, 14 September 2015 (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 per WP:A7 -- no credible assertion of significance. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic The Hedgehog Show[edit]

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

This is an article for a non-notable YouTube Poop series that isn't even scheduled to be released until 2016. I'm also nominating Sonic The Hedgehog Show (season 1) for deletion on similar grounds.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy until it is released, and there are sources to show it passes Wikipedia:Notability (TV shows). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything to show that this would become notable once it's released... assuming it ever is released. (There's a huge tendency for people to talk about making a series and then to dump them before the series starts because of the amount of work that's required for these or after 1-2 episodes.) The thing about YouTube poops (and anything that's abridged or otherwise altered from the original) is that they're fan-made and very, very few of them ever gain enough notability to warrant having an article or even a mention on Wikipedia. I hate to be negative, but it'd actually be somewhat of a waste of userspace and time to cultivate this anywhere on Wikipedia because the chances of any given fan-made YT poop or abridged series passing notability guidelines are extremely low, to the point where it'd actually be a little cruel to send it to the userspace since the chances of this passing GNG are about as likely as Kanye becoming President. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also blocking the article's creator as a promotional username, since it's clearly the initials for the show. I do see that he made some non-Sonic show edits, so it'll be a soft block. I have no problem with him getting unblocked as long as he promises not to edit about his fan show. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This could probably be speedied, to be honest, as A7. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is an open-and-shut case. An admin should be able to come in and resolve this soon. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I hadn't already made my argument, I'd close this myself. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens Entrepreneurial Development Association[edit]

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

Since January 2006, there has been no significant improvement and my searches found nothing better than this and this. Also, despite the external link listed, it seems there is a separate website for them here but there aren't even that recent news so this may not be a largely active organization and that wouldn't be surprised considering it's Botswana. At best, this needs to be mentioned at a related article but, as it's orphaned, I'm not seeing a good target. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Searches turned up nothing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no evidence for notability DGG ( talk ) 03:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2015 (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. No prejudice against redirection Swarm ♠ 03:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Oppenheimer Hall[edit]

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

Unremarkable university hall of residence. Possibly could be merged into something, but I can see no reason for a standalone article. TheLongTone (talk) 13:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because [insert reason here]:

Keep As the originator of these pages it is demoralising to get this notice mid-edit. Instead of listing for deletion less than 20 minutes after first creation, please rather be supportive and suggest ways to improve. I am loathe to continue edits if there is a plan to delete these pages anyway. KH29 (talk) 14:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)KH29[reply]

Comment - Sorry to hear of your frustration, but Wikipedia is built around the inclusion of notable topics. If your plan is to see the article survive, you need to provide some reason for its notability. Notability is the ability to provide valid in-depth support of the article. A single line listing does not do so. Good luck. reddogsix (talk) 15:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks. If this one is deleted that will be tthe end of me on Wikipedia editing. I am finding too much ego these days of deleting things not sport or music related. One game for a college football team is noteworthy, yet a building housing 400 men a year, including those returning from WWII, over 50 years getting a college education is not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KH29 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest using the sandbox to avoid such issues in future; otherwise use the {{in use}} tag. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@KH29: Yes, Wikipedia bureaucracy can be a frustrating process. The notability process for Wikipedia does have its shortcomings. In a simplified explanation, it relies on significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Things like mainstream sporting events and concerts receive massive coverage whereas things in academics often do not. Often, academic sources are so thorough that other academic sources won't see a need to write about the same topic if the information will be the same whereas in pop culture publications it's almost the opposite. I think you're incorrectly attributing "ego" with this bureaucracy and reliance on one of our pillar policies. The editors involved in these deletion discussions know that it's not possible to rely on "I like it", "it's useful", or "it's valuable" person opinion arguments. Discussions need to be based on existing policies. !voting against these policies in deletion discussions is not the way to fix it but rather engaging in community discussions about changing the policies. Mkdw ^talk 17:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable building. reddogsix (talk) 15:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. If other university residences such as Glendower Residence are notable based on 2 references from the UCT web page then so should these pages be kept. Other examples of residences include University of Toronto Graduate House (also 2 refs). The page is a stub - give it a chance to be expanded Gbawden (talk) 11:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFF. And to thge article creator, I entirely agree about the plethora of dull articles on dull Norwegian Death Metal bands (imo per se non notable) & sport articles, but as stated I cxan see no reason for these buildings to have separate articles: I would suggest incorporating the information into one of the articles about the university

Glendower Residence is indeed non-notable in my opinion: I've nominated it for deletion. The Toronto building is very possible notable due to it's architecture, as reflected in the references given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLongTone (talk • contribs)

I'm aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF but also be aware of WP:IAR. Lets see what others have to say on the deletion debate Gbawden (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 09:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Unless something really notable happened there, or it was built by a notable architect,. this is the kind of material that belongs on the University web site, not in a public encyclopedia. there are standard listings for this building on Google, and even a few passing mentions in Google Books. All in all, simply not a notable building.New Media Theorist (talk) 03:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately the two keep !votes are not policy based arguments (WP:CHANCE which the article has now had three weeks to satisfy WP:BURDEN and WP:OTHERSTUFF). I had considered closing this discussion as delete but thought adding my opinion would be a more productive action. Ultimately, we must look at this article against its own merits which is not many. A WP:BEFORE search does not reveal much, and therefore the article does not have the WP:SIGCOV required to meet our inclusion criteria. I don't mind Wikipedia having articles about notable university buildings, but I don't think it's better by having barely sourced ones where notability is questionable, or at least enough so to invoke WP:IAR. Also, to the creator of the page, I too would recommend the draft space for articles you're working on and I wouldn't discriminate against recreation of a new article if you were able to find more sources. Mkdw ^talk 17:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything useful to the university page and then Redirect. There seems to be nothing that makes this building pass the WP:GNG in terms of historical, social, architectural importance. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/weak delete Fails WP:GNG and isn't really notable. Maybe userfy/put it in Draft:Ernest Oppenheimer Hall? MrWooHoo (talk) 22:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to meet any notability criteria including WP:GEOFEAT "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments can be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. They require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Derek Andrews (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This building could easily and perhaps more properly be dealt with another article, maybe "Residences of ..". Notability may still be an issue, but it less likely to be viewed as problematic if it is not perceived as most likely becoming a perpetual stub. Derek Andrews (talk) 14:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Derek Andrews stated the reasons well, there is no evidence of notability, neither historic, social, economic, nor architectural. Few buildings achieve the level of recognition required fro notability. --Bejnar (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Redirect since this place isn't particularly notable-- the university itself is CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nova Ray[edit]

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

Not notable: a company with one main product, providing insufficient evidence of notability other than the existence of a company website, evidence for patents, and a link to one old comparison site. Klbrain (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page was nominated for deletion 5 years ago, but the nomination was never completed (step 3 missing), and there was no debate. Since then, the page has been very quiet, with no improved despite being tagged. I've tried to tidy it up, but most of the existing links have vanished and hence the material is unsupported. I've checked the company website, and there are no News articles since 2006 and the 'contact' page is broken. Klbrain (talk) 23:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's also an orphan. Klbrain (talk) 08:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe delete as there's simply no move target and my searches found no good sources with only this, this and this. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 08:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability just hasn't been established. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons stated by nominator. Also, the article on remotely operated underwater vehicles says nothing about this product, suggesting that it is not very notable even within its own narrow field. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2015 (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. Mkdw ^talk 17:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tonantzin Esparza[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that she meets WP:NACTOR:

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

or WP:GNG. Sending WP:APPNOTE to IP4240207xx. Boleyn (talk) 20:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Walkout (film) instead as it seems it's her best known work. I know her best from George Lopez and there's obviously nothing here to suggest independent notability (searches found nothing good here and here). SwisterTwister talk 07:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 08:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable actress, I'm not entirely sure if she even had a main role in Walkout ?, Anyway fails NACTOR & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 03:54, 7 September 2015 (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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Beale[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. The sole citation given is to a BBC page that contains a picture of Beale, and links to his social media, but not a single word written about him. It is telling that the BBC Introducing program is specifically intended to introduce unknown talent. But a single airplay on that program does not confer the required notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails the WP:BASIC of "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources" with only a single secondary source with any detail (a local paper that mentions him holding club nights in Chester and later staging a small festival in a Cheshire village). --McGeddon (talk) 08:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 09:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches found no better coverage. SwisterTwister talk 22:58, 13 September 2015 (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. No discrimination against recreation of a new article if WP:BURDEN can be addressed whether WP:RS are found in English or another language. Mkdw ^talk 17:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jatinder Pannu[edit]

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

Subject is not notable. The reference provided does not seem neutral. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 09:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of comprehensive info. --Mr. Guye (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: sources need not be neutral. They just need to be reliable. I get the feeling from browsing around that this man is a respected journalist in the Punjab region, but I can't find additional English-language sources with in-depth coverage. Maybe some exist in Punjabi or Hindi? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:45, 7 September 2015 (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. Mkdw ^talk 17:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aarushi (actress)[edit]

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

The actress is not famous. None of the movies have achieved fame. The entire article is sparse and is based off a few references. LokeshRavindranathan 12:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 12:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now I suppose as the single name is not easy to find relevant results but from what I see, there's not much to suggest good independent notability at this time. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 09:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by Nominator.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eileen Evans[edit]

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

Article about graphic designer Post World War II which does not seem to meet WP:GNG. It also does not satisfy WP:NARTIST as it is not a substantial part of an exhibition even the one which the article claims she is a featured artist credits all the art to her colleague not her. Searches have brought up only minimum hits, this could be a symptom predating the internet. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evans is notable for several reasons. 1) her work is part of a significant collection (national archive) thus she passes notability for artists. 2) reading the sources, it's clear that her talent was valued... she started in the ministry as a clerk, was noticed for her art skills, became an assistant and then an equal partner. 3) remember the time period: of course she was paired with a man in a government agency, and who do you think they credit? My search shows dual credit, including at the national archive which we can safely consider an authority. Also it's clear this is a new writer working on this article... the editor would be better served through helping them learn the ropes than by carrying out a delete discussion a day or so after article creation. WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 02:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is her work a substantial portion of the collection? What sources are you reading to gather her talent was valued or not, as none of them said any such thing, are you providing a synopsis? This [32] ref clearly says she was not in fact the artist but worked on layout even though they did do independent commissions none of hers have been provided as proof. As for your last point it has no bearing on whether the article subject meets inclusion criteria or not.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having work in the Victoria and Albert Museum and the National War achives satisfies WP:ARTIST. Sorry McMatter, but I think you misread the ref: the article does not say Eileen was not one of the artists. If she did the layout, typography and forms of the pieces she was making collaboratively, that makes her very much an artist! I am guessing that Reginald handed her a sketch and she turned it into the final form. As any designer will tell you, those require heavy duty artistic skills. Also, you say, refs are probably trapped on paper somewhere. Let's give them time to come to light. New Media Theorist (talk) 06:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. New Media Theorist (talk) 06:20, 7 September 2015 (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. Mkdw ^talk 17:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Belmont[edit]

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

My searches found absolutely nothing to suggest better sourcing, notability and improvement and it has hardly been significantly edited since then (December 2006). SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom; can't find any sources myself. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 09:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above editor. Searches turned up nothing to show they meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:N and WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 14:35, 14 September 2015 (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. Editor if willing may request to userfy the contents at WP:REFUND. Mkdw ^talk 17:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moosa Anwar[edit]

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

Article was deleted once in 2009. New article fails to bring up any new notability except a bunch of passing mentions as someone who has filed a case against a political candidate. WP:ROUTINE coverage as a political party member (but not an elected one), no substantive coverage as someone notable in and of themselves. The article is also apparently self created and reads like a LinkDIn profile more than an encyclopedia article. WP:COI Several of the sources are facebook and tumblr accounts. WP:RS It would need a fundamental rewrite for inclusion and then it would still be of questionable notability WP:BIO Savonneux (talk) 04:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article has too many problems to exist as it is. It is completely WP:AB, and additionally is fairly dependent on WP:NONENG. I would suggest the creator instead go through the process at WP:AFC to help correct all these problems before recreating this. --Holdek (talk) 06:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 09:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Userfy per nom and above editor. Gene93k's suggestion that the editor go through AfC is a good one. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per rationale by @Holdek. Quis separabit? 14:18, 14 September 2015 (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jenkins (director)[edit]

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

Notability not established, doesn't seem to satisfy WP:GNG nor WP:DIRECTOR. Staberinde (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Staberinde (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 07:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 03:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 09:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 00:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He just doesn't seem to be that notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't satisfy any of the WP:DIRECTOR criteria:

Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.

No evidence presented of this.

The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.

No evidence presented of this.

The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

No evidence presented of this.

The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

And no evidence presented of this either. --Slashme (talk) 11:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TIB-The Independent BankersBank[edit]

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

I'm sure this is familiar with bankers but I haven't found anything to suggest better sources and improvement, searches here, here, here and here. I live very close to this area and although I'm not entirely familiar with banking, I've never heard of this. SwisterTwister talk 17:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 03:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 09:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 00:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be a company that handles a lot of money with not that many employees, but they operate in the wings, mostly, they don't appear, and they aren't talked about, web searches turn up directories and more directories... Kraxler (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Arguably wp:not and wp:or are two big red flags, especially for a business page. — Asgardiator ^{Iä! Iä!} 01:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adamantius (journal)[edit]

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

Comment This is a very strange one, and I'm making this as a procedural nomination, rather than me desiring any particular outcome (at least at the moment). The article was prodded, then AFD'd in 2009. Then it got undeleted/restored, possibly for a DRV discussion, which endorsed the deletion. Then in 2010, it was unprotected by John Vandenberg with the summary 'new info has come to light', then restored with the summary 'no info has come to light'. The 'new' info seems to have been indexing in L'Année Philologique (L'Année Philologique). Is this truly sufficient to established notability? I don't know, but I think we should have a debate about it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:15, 23 August 2015 (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/2015 August 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 09:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yes, as an academic journal there seems to be a little bit of notability established. At the same time, here we still have a publication with almost no impact. It's not mentioned in books. It's not referenced in any kinds of news articles. It hasn't made a splash in terms of getting other journals to really cite it. I feel inclined to just get rid of the article given, at the very least, the spirit of the rules that we have. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sure what happened here. The logs say that it was restored because "new info has come to light", but looking at the changes made since the last deletion, I don't see anything that would justify reverting the previous delete decision. No sign that this comes even close to meeting WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UbiQ[edit]

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

I dePRODed this while clearing expired PRODs. Concern was: Spam, but I think a review by the community would be more appropria.te Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 11:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 01:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 01:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 09:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:CSD#A7 applies: no claim to notability of the company, only describing its products (in a somewhat promotional way). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no coverage anywhere in independent sources Kraxler (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2015 (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, WP:SOFTDELETE--Ymblanter (talk) 06:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Bender[edit]

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

He may have gotten some attention here and there but my searches found nothing better, with the best results here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 09:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see nothing substantial in the nom's list of references. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 14 September 2015 (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) Kraxler (talk) 18:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimiras Beresniovas[edit]

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

I was reluctant to nominate this as he may actually be notable but I'm not seeing any evidence and my searches found nothing better than this. If notable, it'll need familiar attention and improvement. Wikimandia I'm not sure how good your Lithuanian is. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - my Lithuanian is non-existent but I think he is notable, as he's definitely in the Lithuanian Who's Who (can't link to the page, but it comes up in book search) and I found the reference to him being honored by the city of Kaunas for lifetime achievement type thing. I cleaned it up and added sources. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 09:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikimandia - Sources added & article's been significantly improved since nomination, Notability does seem to be there so Keep. –Davey2010^Talk 20:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I see this was relisted, and I don't really have much discussion to add to the above, but the points already made are valid, so I think in this case there is enough verifiable evidence of notability. --Slashme (talk) 00:38, 7 September 2015 (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. The arguments for keep are in my opinion sound policy, especially that by Peterkingdom. DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Magadha Kingdom[edit]

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

Relevance of the article. Article appears to mostly contain long quotes directly lifted from other sources. Not appropriate for Wikipedia Pinkfloyd11 (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Defer close~~ (other than speedy- or snowball-closes) until 1 week after relevant WikiProjects have been contacted. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC) Update Defer close until 7 days after 03:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC), which is when this was processed by DELSORT. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC) Update: The time period has expired. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Magadha and keep history, and post a note on Talk:Magadha inviting editors to move appropriate information to the main article or, if the topic of "kingdom of Magadha in Indian epic literature" is distinct enough from the historical kingdom of Magadha to warrant separate coverage and the topic in notable enough to qualify for a stand-alone article, to undo the redirect and replace the copied-from-other-public-domain-sources content replace the redirect with content that meets Wikipedia's editorial standards (~~which~~ the current page lacks an encyclopedic tone and has other issues, but that's not a problem AFD should try to solve). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC) Update While I'm now convinced that the topic is notable, I am STILL recommending "redirect, discuss, rewrite using existing material" over "keep" or "keep and rewrite" even in light of comments made here as of the time of this comment. Also struck grammar error in earlier comment. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I cannot believe such a historically notable subject would be nominated for deletion. Any serious encyclopaedia should cover this. In my view another case of WP:GEOBIAS. Afd is not a alternative to cleanups. AusLondonder (talk) 06:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply There is already an article on the historical kingdom of Magadha. This article is about the MYTHOLOGICAL kingdom of Magadha, as described in the Mahabharata and other Hindu works. It mostly consists of a list of where Magadha is mentioned in those scriptures. Other than a small blurb about Jarasandha, that is.Pinkfloyd11 (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep -- Whether the two great Indian epic sagas are history or mere myth is immaterial. The Mahabharata exists and is one of the great works of ancient literature. Even if it is mythical or even wholly fictional is certainly important enough for us to keep it. The historical kingdom is properly covered in a separate article. It may not be an ideal article; if so, it should be improved not deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2015 (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. Arguments all around are rather weak but there has been a very considerable amount of time for improvements. Stifle (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

North Dakota Progressive Coalition[edit]

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

My searches found nothing (with this and this being the best results) and there isn't even a minimal amount to suggest local notability, much less that there isn't much info about the group, now that it's closed) and there's no alternative to deletion such as moving elsewhere. This has managed to stay since July 2005 with never any significant improvement. Notifying past editors @Haymaker, EVula, Kingturtle, and Alexwcovington:. SwisterTwister talk 19:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a very short sentence in Politics of North Dakota or Delete. It existed [33] but it didn't amount to much, a news google search garnered zero hits [34].E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't agree that "there isn't even a minimal amount to suggest local notability", it had 33 groups across North Dakota. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:SuperCarnivore591 It would be useful if you could provide some reliable, third party source supporting notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that having 33 groups makes a party notable. --Slashme (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 21:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 00:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The organization just wasn't particularly notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:48, 7 September 2015 (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] Macay, Charles (1882). Poetry and Humour. p. 350. Sweer-arse . . . a sport among Scottish children, in which two of them are seated on the ground, and, holding a stick between them, endeavour each of them to draw the other up from the sitting posture. The heaviest in the posterior wins the game.

[2] ttp://www.reviewjournal.com/entertainment/music/las-vegas-born-singer-manika-takes-two-holiday-classics. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[3] ttp://www.latina.com/entertainment/buzz/pop-singer-manika-exclusive-interview. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[4] ttp://www.seventeen.com/celebrity/music/a14528/manika-showcase-performance/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[5] ttp://deluxe-version.com/featured-super-star-manika/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[6] ttps://squareup.com/market/dlxvrsn-magazine/dlxvrsn-fw?square_lead=item_embed. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[7] ttp://issuu.com/kevinlapalme/docs/summer_2015/78. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[8] ttp://www.metrolyrics.com/news-story-my-musical-mind-manika.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]