Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 June	3 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Society for the Advancement of Sexual Health

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

Non-notable credential mill. Starburst9 (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards delete simply because there's no solid significant and notable coverage about them with searches here, here and here. Scholar also found some results but simply nothing that is significant and in-depth about this group. SwisterTwister talk 20:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable. — James Cantor (talk) 15:20, 5 June 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Stiller's Breast

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

No evidence of notability. The one reference in the article is broken, and a google search comes up with nothing beyond wikipedia articles and IMDB, which isn't enough. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - Google brings nothing up for me other than IMDB which isn't a reliable source. –Davey2010^Talk 20:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JDDJS (talk) 23:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Rather obscure film with multiple searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) finding nothing aside from one result. I believe the one award isn't enough to save this article. SwisterTwister talk 20:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough reliable sources cover it to meet WP:GNG Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:52, 5 June 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rionne McAvoy

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

Previously deleted by AfD. Restored, but does have some extra material which means I declined to speedy it via G4. Bringing here for consideration. I have restored the last version before deletion which can be seen here. I am neutral. Black Kite (talk) 11:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Has done nothing notable in his career and doesn't work for one of the bigger Japanese promotions. Even by Wrestle-1's standard, he's a lower tier performer. The one championship he has held in his career is an obscure Australian title. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 12:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 12:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 12:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I just removed unreliable sources (Cage Match is a no no for BLP claims and Tumblr is a blog host so that's a no no full stop) but even with them I agree with Ribbon. A bit player in Japan and just one tour of his homeland and even then it was just to one show in one state. There are several Australian wrestlers without articles that are more notable than this guy. Curse of Fenric (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
deletion please. Does not meet the standards. MPJ -US 20:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 4 June 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 International Socialist Organization. Davewild (talk) 07:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Chretien

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

Chretien was a minor (Green Party) candidate for United States Senate in California at the time of previous AFD (closed as no consensus). The argument for deletion was that he was non-notable and lacking reliable secondary sources. The argument for keeping was that he was an active candidate. 10 years on, there is no claim to notability. He is a failed candidate for political office and a political activist of no apparent or sourceable notability. Searching on his name produces stories in Socialist Worker, a fringe publication put out by the International Socialist Organization with which he is affiliated, so it is not an independent source. He has been mentioned in other fringe outlets, for example, in Indymedia, here:[1] where he is quoted ("said Todd Chretien of the International Socialist Organization.") He has written opinion articles for other fringe publication, including Counterpunch. Only RS on the page documents that he participated in a student strike at Columbia way back in his student days. Have searched for and not found substantive coverage in mainstream sources, not even when he was a candidate. Fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:BIO. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.

Redirect to International Socialist Organization, as he writes frequently for their publication. He seems to pop up in the news fairly regularly so he could become notable again for his bourgeoisie-crushing efforts. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of the original deletion discussion, WP:NPOL hadn't been codified as thoroughly as it is now — while it was never standard consensus, there was a significant viewpoint that non-winning candidates should be considered eligible for Wikipedia articles for being candidates. But that's definitely not the standard that applies now; under current wikistandards, nothing here qualifies him for a standalone article. Redirect to International Socialist Organization per Wikimandia. Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 12 June 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. slakr^\ talk / 06:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Johnson (musician)

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

Not notable.Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Full member of only one notable band. (Brian Welch solo and Love and Death are the same thing. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. It was deleted on the first AfD and recreated shortly after. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Drummer for two notable bands (Love & Death and Red). Three pieces specifically devoted to the subject: [2] [3] [4]. Not sure if there are more out there—I didn't check. Walter Görlitz (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson is not a prominent member of Red, just a touring drummer. All those sources are in relation to Dan Johnson of Love and Death. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or AT A MINIMUM redirect) - The very first AFD regarding Johnson was held in 2011, long before he joined R3D or Digital Summer. Johnson is a percussionist for two notable bands, R3D and Love and Death. In addition to the articles that Görlitz mentions, there are articles at [5] and [6] that discuss Johnson. Per these pages [7], [8] as well as [9], Johnson is also performing with Digital Summer and Against All Will, two other notable bands. If the page cannot be kept, it should, at a minimum, be redirected with history to "Love and Death (band)" [or perhaps "Red (American band)"]. Additionally, Johnson has performed with regular MTV2 band The Sammus Theory as well as performing with Mayhem Festival 2011 Battle of the Bands winner Back from Ashes. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a prominent member of Digital Summer and Against All Will. Back from Ashes and The Sammus Theory are not notable. Sources don't discuss him, they mention him. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Johnson's body of work is sizable. While Johnson is described as a "temporary" percussionist for R3D, he contributed all of the percussion to their album Of Beauty and Rage. Additionally, temporary is only as temporary as temporary is. Johnson has now been working with R3D for at least one year, and has toured with them fairly extensively. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:39, 10 June 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) 03:17, 17 June 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 speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak under criterion G11. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 00:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matt O'Connor (music)

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

Non notable A&R manager. Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Claims "His projects have sold over one million albums" but they are other's albums, not his. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - non-notable and pure promotion —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This article is an accepted WP:AFC. I don't know why it was accepted. This is an advertisement with only unreliable sources. --Mr. Guye (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:16, 2 June 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. (soft) slakr^\ talk / 06:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The High Learys

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

Not notable. Lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Has a lot of sources but most are not reliable. Band lacks charting, airplay awards. Releases are not on "important" label. Touring lacks coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inclined to delete because my searches found nothing significant and notable and I don't think any of these links are significant and notable. SwisterTwister talk 20:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 00:14, 10 June 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) 03:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am against deleting the article, at least at this time. We should improve the article and give it a more objective point of view, as well as give it a more precise expression--that is assuming we can find the necessary sources. Let's try to make it a better article, before we prematurely throw it in the trash can. There may be something here that is workable. Garagepunk66 (talk) 15:15, 21 June 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. Davewild (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Johnson (singer)

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

Besides one vague uncited mention that a song of hers "was popular on the charts in Turkey" not much else that would satisfy WP:MUSBIO. Note this isn't the same person as the radio producer also from San Diego. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 10:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG as singer - article has been tagged with multiple issues since 2009 —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My searches found nothing outstanding and this seems to be another case of an indie musician (and it seems her Allmusic profile may have been removed?). Aside from that, there's not much outside primary links and social media. SwisterTwister talk 20:25, 4 June 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 close as disruptive. (non-admin closure) —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hindki

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

there is no tribe or language named hindki in afghanistan Ψιδο μρ.χ (talk) 09:15, 2 June 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 June 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:28, 2 June 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. Davewild (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Folkestone bus station

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

Not a notable bus station. The sole claim to notability is a pony getting on a bus there, but I don't think that's enough. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK just noticed same user made a bunch of these about village bus stops. Do you mind if I piggy back them onto this AfD? —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can, provided a closing administrator can treat them independently if necessary. I think Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashford Bank Street is from the same source. I'd be hesitant to flat out delete Canterbury Bus Station as that's a significant local landmark (eg: "The tourist group for the cathedral at 11:00 will rendezvous at the bus station") so that one I'd redirect to somewhere in Canterbury. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other non-notable local articles written by same village council person:

Bouverie Place Shopping Centre is a little complicated - that's not a reasonable search term, but it could be renamed Bouverie Place and merge / redirected to Folkestone#Leisure. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a really ordinary shopping center. Built in 2007, so non-historic, and 20 stores, mainly minor stuff. The article is just a listing of stores and then all the various bus routes to get there, which nobody is going to look up on Wikipedia. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete no notability and seems promotional, mentioning nearby stores. It was created by a user with the same name as the town, Lydd-on-Sea, so no doubt works for council. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSD#A7 only applies to people, animals, web content, organisations and events .... not bus stops. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should definitely apply to bus stops. And stop signs. And fire hydrants. :-) —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. None of these are worth more than a line in the article on the relevant town.TheLongTone (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to transport section of town articles without prejudice towards recreation if anything substantial can be found, though doubtful. Alakzi (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per TheLongTone and WP:NOTTRAVEL.Charles (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lot per above - To be honest I thought UK bus stations & shopping centres were kept, Anyway all of these can be added in there respective articles if needed. –Davey2010^Talk 21:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 4 June 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 Hughes High School#Athletics. There are three responses to the nomination, one is a comment, and two are suggestions to merge the info, though one of the suggestions says delete and merge. The merge will redirect the title to the new article so has the same effect as a deletion, but leaves the history in place. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kendric Smith

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

No enduring notability. Nine touchdowns, while impressive, is a one-off event for someone who has made no other contributions. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 07:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there's a Kendric Smith who went to Ohio, could it be the same guy? He went to high school in Texas but I supposed he could have transferred. [10], [11], [12] —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't be him. According to the Ohio player's bio he would have had to be 14 at the time. This Smith was a senior in high school at the time. [13]. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 09:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge info about record/ESPY nom to Hughes High School - Too bad... I was hoping that kid made it to NCAA —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Query - @Wikimandia: Specifically, what information would you propose to merge to the high school article? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 9 June 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) 03:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dirtlawyer1: sorry I missed your query. Under the Hughes High School#Athletics section, I would put the info that a Hughs HS football player set the record and received ESPY nom. A sentence or two is sufficient. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but merge information about his record into his high school's entry, if it's not present. This is a high school sports record that is state-dependent and fleeting. It doesn't create a biographical article, a la Everybody's All American. Nothing against the young man, but it's beneath the GN standards. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:08, 16 June 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. kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Gardner (poker player)

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

Extremely poorly sourced BLP and from the text is barely marginally notable. Standards have moved on since this was created and I think we should remove this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - notability is not temporary. I found a few references to him as a "phenom" and "star" though I don't know much about poker unfortunately. It seems like if he'd already $2.5M by 2009 at that age he's probably pretty good. [14], [15], [16] —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Did well enough to make money from poker in the 2000's, but not actually that notable as a poker player, and I can see no notability outside of poker. Not one of those poker television celebrity from televised poker, haven't won any major tournaments, is published but not notably so. -- KTC (talk) 08:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 17:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Placing second in the WSOP Main Event and winning over $1 million satisfies the informal Wikipedia:WikiProject Poker#Biography article notability criteria. The Main Event gets by far the most TV/press coverage of any poker tournament; those players good (or insanely lucky) enough to make the final table get spotlighted. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a PokerNews article[17] and a pokerlistings interview.[18] Clarityfiend (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 16:20, 9 June 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) 03:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as per Clarityfiend. The article needs additional sources, which I'll look at adding now, but the World Series of Poker is televised and certainly a top-level tournament. Placing second and winning $1 million makes him notable, especially given that he broke a record for youngest person to do so at the time. This article isn't so poorly sourced as to fall afoul of the BLP policy, but further sources are needed to meet WP:V fully. ~ Rob^Talk 02:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Placing second in one tournament does not make him notable. See WP:BLP1E. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a citation that Clarity found, attributed other information to existing citations, and updated some info on the page. Unless I missed something, there should be no concerns about inadequately sourced BLP withstanding. A separate issue is whether PokerNews qualifies as a "reliable source". I have no answer to that, as I'm not familiar with the site or knowledgeable in this area. ~ Rob^Talk 02:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes (IMO), PokerNews do qualify as a RS. Large (in context), independent (does run paid for adverts by poker sites though not unlike TV station), poker specific news agency. -- KTC (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak ~~keep~~ delete ~~per Clarityfiend~~ BMK (talk) 02:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On re-evaluating, KTC seems closer to the mark. BMK (talk) 04:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. WP:BLP1E Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

to consider a sporting event as "one event" is surely taking that policy above and beyond, in fact it even says it might not apply to sports... GuzzyG (talk) 02:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Clarity, seems to pass Wikipedia:WikiProject Poker#Biography article notability criteria, one event was one of Poker's top tournaments, not a local news story in Timbuktu or Jeremy Meeks esque reporting GuzzyG (talk) 03:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes Wikipedia:WikiProject Poker#Biography article notability criteria Govindaharihari (talk) 06:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, and Pokernews is obviously a reliable source. 2005 (talk) 00:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:GNG. There is enough non-trivial coverage in WP:RS to satisfy notability requirements. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the above. There's enough sourcing here to justify a claim of notability. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:22, 6 July 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. A mixed bag of responses by editors, but none to keep. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Babozai

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. Searches turned up information on the town and no evidence of notability for this sub-set of the clan. It seems it can also be spelt Babuzai. I considered a merge or redirect to Yusufzai (Pashtun tribe), where it is not mentioned, but as this entire sub-stub is unreferenced and unverified, I thought it best not to; no evidence that they are worth a mention/redirect. Babozai, Mardan (the town) should be moved to this page - clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and the vast majority of the incoming links to this page were meant for the twon, resolving them now. Boleyn (talk) 06:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely sure - Books found some results to at least confirm they exist with some not so good sources here (not as definite). This is likely another case of non-English and offline sources considering this is Pakistan (along with the low use of technology by these people, I'm presuming). SwisterTwister talk 20:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Yusufzai (Pashtun tribe) it's a small fraction and most commonly used spellings are Babuzai. sami ^talk 23:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No point in a redirect to Yusufzai (which is the article's actual title; the suggested target above is a redirect). This subject is not mentioned there, and nothing in this article is verified. Also, it appears that this article is standing in the way of an article about the town, which IS notable and verified and is the primary meaning of Babozai. --MelanieN (talk) 21:22, 24 June 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bhind clan

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

I was unable to verify that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. I found mention of the clan, but no clear evidence of notability from reliable sources. Much of what I found from a Google search was WP mirror sites. Google News etc. brought up nothing at all. Boleyn (talk) 06:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete simply because my searches including at Books only found results for the place Bhind not this tribe, continuing searches found nothing else. SwisterTwister talk 20:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've found nothing of note in sources in years of having this on my watchlist. - Sitush (talk) 13:17, 8 June 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1696 Nurmela

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted; or (per NASTRO) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 06:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The second largest member of the Baptistina family was the subject of a study as to whether it was the cause of the K/T impactor,[19] as well as a photometry study.[20] There may be a couple of other sources as well. Praemonitus (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact mentioned by Praemonitus is in the title of one of his sources. Along with those two, here's another lightcurve study [21]. I think that gives it enough breadth of coverage for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn per above. Boleyn (talk) 05:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- For the convenience of other reviewers, you might want to follow WP:WDAFD. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 17:12, 5 June 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 List of minor planets: 1001-2000. JohnCD (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1463 Nordenmarkia

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted; or (per NASTRO) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 06:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:DWMP: Agree with D. Eppstein. Unable to establish notability. Praemonitus (talk) 02:36, 7 June 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 List of minor planets: 1001-2000. JohnCD (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1367 Nongoma

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted; or (per NASTRO) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 06:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:DWMP: there's a mention of it being s slow rotator,[22] but not much else. Unable to establish notability. Praemonitus (talk) 02:38, 7 June 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 Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences#Publications. --MelanieN (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

INFORMS Transactions on Education

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

Article de-PRODded by creator without reason given. PROD reason still stands: Non-notable journal. Indexed in Academic Journal Guide, but not in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 06:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences#Publications, where it is mentioned. While the journal seems to fail general notability guidelines WP:GNG and WP:NJournals criteria, the existence of and very basic facts about the journal are verifiable. The journal name is a plausible search term. Hence a redirect to a section of the article on the sponsoring institute, containing a list of INFORMS journals, seems reasonable. --Mark viking (talk) 03:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 17 June 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. (non-admin closure) JAaron95 (Talk) 14:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What Kind of Man Are You?

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

Article doesn't establish it's notability, and reads like an ad. True CRaysball | ^#RaysUp 05:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pinging editors listed at WP:INDAFD to help establish possible notability: @Dharmadhyaksha, Titodutta, Dwaipayanc, TheOriginalSoni, and Jayantanth:@Soham, Jim Cartar, Cutest Penguin, and Rsrikanth05:. Also, I found some links, while they may not be WP:RS or significant coverage, they may help to establish verifiability and notability: A B C D E -War wizard90 (talk) 06:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first two links are very reliable. I'll look out for more. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - here's a good one: NBC News article —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can't say, either way. I actually remember passing coverage of the media campaign in English language media (or notice of it) in global segments. I don't doubt that it existed, nor that it was remarked upon and praised. Since it was a public service campaign, it definitely got seen and heard by a large audience (more than many actresses in a single role). Whether a single season media educational initiative generates enough long term reference to need contextualizing (rather than a discussion in another article -- one on public awareness campaigns), I can't decide. If so, then keep. If not, then neutral. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like an ad campaign for an NGO, which doesn't necessarily make it notable. Can't seem to find much info on the awards it has won, either. I think it should be purged. Solntsa90 (talk) 00:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:GNG having received ongoing significant coverage in reliable sources. Promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. Source examples include:

Reproductive Health Matters. May 1, 2007. (subscription required)
Planet India. p. 248.
NBC News. February 28, 2006.
The Times of India. August 3, 2005.
The Hindu. June 4, 2005.
Sify. June 3, 2005
Gulf News. May 18, 2005.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article meets the general notability guidelines and have significance coverage in reliable sources. @War wizard90 and TrueCRaysball: as @Northamerica1000: suggested that the tone of the article should be improved as per Wikipedia standards instead of ditching it.— CutestPenguin^Hangout 05:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cutest Penguin: I never suggested that we ditch it, I merely added a neutral comment. However, given the sources provided by Northamerica1000 I have no issues with keeping this article. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

War wizard90 (talk · contribs) I didn't actually meant that you or anyone else suggesting to ditch the article out of Wikipedia

. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 05:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to meet WP:GNG. --92slim (talk) 18:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @92slim:Care to tells us how it fails to meet GNG? Or is a keep argument of - "meets WP:GNG" a sufficient enough rebuttal to your argument? -War wizard90 (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that on Wikipedia, the absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable. Topic notability is based upon source availability, rather than the state of sourcing in articles. However, sources were added to the article after it was nominated. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to HIV/AIDS in India - There are sufficient sources to cover it on Wikipedia in some fashion -- I just don't think there's enough for a stand-alone article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient sources in article now (June 21) to indicate notability of the subject.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:38, 21 June 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Archives Wales

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Arb with the following rationale "You may be right but it deserves at least an AfD. Also, did you google "Archives Wales" with the quotes; plenty of hits". Well, I cannot find any hits which make it pass the above notability reqs, or Wikipedia:Notability (websites). It exists, it is linked to, but where is the in-depth coverage by independent sources? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are extensive links from eliable sources and some media coverage under its previous branding Archives Network wales. Martinlc (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Are Archives Wales and Archives Network Wales functionally related? If so, there seems to be enough coverage to support notability. [23][24][25] --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: yes they are related - Archives Network Wales was rebranded as Archives Wales. There are references to ANW in the technical section of the website [[26]]Martinlc (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just a website. No notability. If it held archives itself then it would have notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to meet GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a vote. You need to explain how it seems to meet this policy. Because I did explain how it does not meet it, and your vote it therefore a simple WP:ITSNOTABLE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:18, 17 June 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) 03:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
Arxiloxos's sources from the BBC, the Western Mail, and the Liverpool Daily Post each provide nontrivial coverage of Archives Wales (which was formerly called Archives Network Wales).
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Archives Wales to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:57, 26 June 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Archives Portal Europe Network of Excellence Project

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline." It was deprodded by User:Lcastrillo (creator) with no rationale. This badly written, government-PR like entry, with no references outside self-refs, should not be in an encyclopedia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional. It makes no sense that they created an article about the project's framework but no article about the project itself, Archives Portal Europe. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm wondering if it was created as a test? It doesn't have any justification and appears to be ported from intraoffice documents. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I didn't see this before: Talk:Archives Portal Europe Network of Excellence Project. The creator there talks in bureaucratese and admits "I am working for WP7 and this page is a part of our dissemination tasks." So, WP:COI too. We are not a place for "dissemination". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 4 June 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. slakr^\ talk / 22:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

X Tour (Ed Sheeran tour)

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed WP:NCONCERT TOUR requirement. " It was deprodded by User:AGoodDoctor (creator) with the following rationale "There is loads of information about this tour, however, time just needs to be put in ensuring the range of setlists are uploaded, as well as reviews, which are all on the internet, are put into this article". Well, I am not seeing any reliable sources. Blogs, facebook, niche music sites selling tickets or merchandise, fansite, etc. - those exit, sure. But we need to show more reliable coverage. Not every tour of every band is notable, and it is high time to start pruning the fancruft minor band tour listings that are being spammed here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep - no, not every tour is notable, but nearly completely sold out 179-city world tours featuring one of the top-selling musicians of the past few years are notable. Hmmm, at least I think. Having to add a third show at Wembley Stadium because the first two sell out is probably fancruft minor band tour stuff :-) Google News search: Ed Sheeran + tour + sold out —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't get to snow with the first comment :P And I am afraid your search is incorrect; you just search for his tours in general. The correct search changes "tour" to "x tour", and shows much fewer hits. I see some that discuss the concert in passing, but only one reliable, on-topic article: mtv.com entry - and that is quite brief. If you disagree, please list better sources here, and discuss their reliability, and extent of their coverage. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can snow keep with a first comment because there is no way this is being deleted. I'm not even an Ed Sheeran fan in particular and I recognize when a tour meets GNG. No, the correct search does not have to be "x tour" because many articles will not refer to the tour by that name; it's just "tour" as in his current tour, as in the tour he's been on since last year, as in the tour he's doing to support his current album. Since there's only ever been one other Ed Sheeran tour, that search term will likely bring up relevant articles. Also the tour is also referred to as the Multiply tour (since that is how they pronounce the X). I'm not going to waste time looking for refs on this unless there becomes an actual chance this article will be deleted. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Bottom line you have failed to provide a single reliable source. Just saying "Google is full of them" is worthless, because my Google is clearly different from yours. Unless you provide sources for us to discuss, all I see is WP:ITSOBVIOUS-type of an argument. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - If this article is in any jeopardy of actually being deleted (ie other editors support deletion), I will take the time to research sources. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This essentially an ADVERT for a world tour promoting an album. Possibly merge (as a few sentences) to the article on the album with a link to a website listing the events. The promoter will ensure that is kept up to date, but we cannot be sure that this article will be. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral comment Unless you're on the fossil county fair circuit, aren't all concert tours pretty much road shows advertising albums? And I would assume it's Ed's fanbase, not his promo team whose keeping this article up to date. Nate • (chatter) 23:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kraxler (talk) 18:06, 9 June 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) 03:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable tour by a notable artist. Article can be updated with better references if necessary. Andise1 (talk) 05:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it is necessary. Please find said better references first, then vote. Because nobody found such references so far. And without it, your post is just WP:ITSNOTABLE invalid-type of a vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this tour includes three sold out Wembley Stadium shows. Relevant enough. ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 20:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be an advert of the tour. Never even heard of the fellow. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 00:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I just added the just-announced news that a documentary concert film will be filmed at London's Wembley Stadium during this tour, making this tour notable enough for more than just the live musical performances.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 06:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Polish Jazz Recordings and Beyond

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (books) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Theshinzu (creator) with no rationale. While the article sports an impressive collection of refs, they seem to be misleading. For starters, it's a recent book (2015), and virtually all refs are older, so what is it that they are suppose to be proving? As far as I can tell, they are references to other works on Polish jazz and such, irrelevant here. Outside a quote from the book jacket, there is no links to any reliable reviews, nor can I find any. Not all books are notable, and this one doesn't seem to be notable (at least, not yet). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Wikipedia:WikiProject Jazz notified. AllyD (talk) 06:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not establish notability.Pincrete (talk) 09:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As the nominator observes, most of the given references relate to the subject area in general (for example linking to books about Komeda and Stańko) rather than this 2015 book in particular. In years to come this may well become a standard reference book in its field, but that is speculation. As things stand, this fails the WP:NBOOK criteria. AllyD (talk) 06:47, 10 June 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Kaczynski

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:PatGallacher (creator) with the following rationale "as had significant coverage". I disagree: few minor mentions in minor media outlets; he is notable per WP:ONEVENT, already an old and forgotten story. Not enough to pass GNG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep had significant coverage. PatGallacher (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @PatGallacher: Saying so does not make it so. You have to show it to us, and so far you failed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As an event, his arrest is attested by RT and a single story in a British newspaper that doesn't corroborate the article's text. The other sources are primary, or at least not independent, and none of them are about the subject of the entry. Therefore, we have a speculative Wikipedia article that fails notability on the basis of lack of verification and EVENT. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- A left wing activist who interferes in another country'sa politics and gets locked up for his efforts. Hardly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some of the comments above seem a bit more dismissive than the circumstances warrant. The Daily Sabah piece cited in the article, for instance, certainly seems to be secondary, fairly substantial and about the subject - and I suspect that the same would apply to this, from The Times, if I could see behind the paywall. And left-wing activists who get arrested are notable if there is enough coverage from reliable sources, assuming that the coverage continues. So far as I can see, there was in fact a lot of press coverage in Turkish, quite a bit of it (so far as I can judge, not reading Turkish) looking reliable, at the time of the arrest, and there is still some continuing Turkish coverage - but having said that, without knowing Turkish, there is no way for me to judge whether this would even get close to taking the subject past the WP:ONEEVENT hurdle. PWilkinson (talk) 19:12, 7 June 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. (soft) slakr^\ talk / 07:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okuden Music

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Theshinzu (creator) with no rationale. I am not seeing any good refs, niche passing coverage, self-refs, that's about it. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Wikipedia:WikiProject Jazz notified. AllyD (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No independent refs, no notability, probable spam.Pincrete (talk) 09:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found reviews of the Matthew Shipp / Mat Walerian concert recording in The Wire and Allaboutjazz, but nothing substantially about this festival itself, so I don't see it established as a notable event. AllyD (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I find it personal - have serious suspicion about the idea - the concert series were funded by local government etc. - it is more than official : http://www.okudenmusic.com/partners.php: - also concert series featured most important musicians in the jazz world - so maybe just make your research more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theshinzu (talk • contribs) 13:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: On 9 June the article author added several references. JohnCD (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the refs added at [27], not seeing how they pass WP:QUESTIONABLE. Mentions in passing on minor websites, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Concert series was financed by official government money plus every single concert is reviewed in encyclopedia of Polish Jazz : Maciej Lewenstein "Polish Jazz Recordings and Beyond", ISBN 9788380117440, page 434— Preceding unsigned comment added by Theshinzu (talk — Preceding undated comment added 21:07, 9 June 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
- Reviewed in detail... Could you scan that page so we could analyze it together? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 11:31, 18 June 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) 07:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raffi Ferreira (Soccer Player)

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

Non-notable soccer player, fails WP:NCOLLATH. After I BLPPROD'ed the article original creator added two sources with very minimal mentions from a primary source. Does not meet the threshold for "significant coverage" required by WP:GNG. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails both WP:NCOLLATH and WP:FOOTY. Out of the three sources, two are ~~self-published~~ published by the college itself, and the third merely copies the first. Not to mention the promotional tone. Refined searches in Google return but a few hundred links to various social networks. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 03:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, didn't notice that 3rd source due to the poor formatting, but yeah, still doesn't resolve the notability issues. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject fails notability, and the article is without support. It's a mudpie of text, too. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. Also fails WP:NCOLLATH, awards not at a high enough level. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:25, 4 June 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Childs Farm

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " Created by SPA, it was deprodded by User: Willie d troudour (<10 edits total) who left the following comment at it's talk: "This article meets the Wikipedia:General notability guideline because of multiple independent third party publications discussing the subject on the page and some publications are not listed.". No specifics examples where given, and outside [28], all I see is mentions in passing or coverage in niche publications/press releases/PR media/etc. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think it just barely meets GNG, with profiles on the company, its products and on her (since it's basically about how she created the company) [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36] —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's review:
  - [37] coverage of innovative advertising by major British newspaper, The Telegraph
  - article about company winning an award by Junior Magazine (magazine). The article seems like a PR piece, it's short, and full of marketing speak ("an award-winning and affordable collection of ", "the first, and only, baby & children’s skincare range to make the following claims: dermatologically & paediatrician tested and approved and suitable for newborns & upwards", etc.) . The magazine describes itself as a " glossy, family lifestyle website" that went out of print in 2013 but maintains an online presence. By 2014, when it covered CF, it was only an online portal. Seems like a niche, non-RS source, and written like a PR/marketing/ad piece.
  - [38] a companion to the above, JM interviews DF founder. Outside being regional/niche, it is is also not about the company, but it's founder, and mentions the company only in passing.
  - [39] a profile of the company founder in a regional UK portal (Hampshire Life, www.hampshire-life.co.uk). Outside being regional/niche, it is is also not about the company, but it's founder, and mentions the company only in passing.
  - [40] An ad for the products, in the form of an "article", appearing in "THE WIDEST DISTRIBUTED COMPLIMENTARY LIFESTYLE MAGAZINE IN SUSSEX". Another niche (distributed "throughout the county"), PR coverage, an ad masquerading for an article.
  - [41] Seems like a Czech equivalent of those British PR niche pieces. In fact, I think it's a shop.
  - [42] Another PR "buy this product". It's an ad for a single product, "Childs Farm Top-To-Toe Cleaning Kit, £9.95 www.childsfarm.com", in the form of profile of favorite products selected for the British edition of the Vogue_(magazine). It does not discuss the company, it is just fawning over one of their products.
  - [43] Similar coverage, a paragraph inviting people to buy "Bath and hair products for kids, from £4.69, from Childs Farm". Published in a blog/lifestyle section of a major British newspaper, The Guardian, but of dubious reliability. Anyway, it's coverage of the company's product, not the company.
- So, User:Wikimandia, I'd appreciate if you'd tell me how those sources pass GNG/Company notability for independent, major (non-niche, non-regional, non-passing) coverage. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because I don't agree with your assessment of these refs secretly being ads, PR pieces, blah blah blah. The Q&As with her are primarily about the company and how it got started, and you might want to head on over to WP:CORP because your standard requiring "major (non-niche, non-regional)" sources is not in the guideline at all, and, in fact, appears to be something you've invented to entertain us. The requirement for sources are that they be reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product. There is nothing that says coverage in a niche publication is not acceptable (especially if you have niche product, duh!); nor that local or regional publications cannot count as a reliable source. Per WP:AUD, you can't have an article with only local sources, but that's not the case with this article. So that's how I say these sources pass GNG. Also the Czech one is not a store but a women's portal and magazine; they sell a few products but they do not sell Childs Farm products. Hopefully that satisfies your questions. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I could argue that you are confusing GNG and CORP, but let's not split words or guidelines. And yes, I should have said clearly non-RS, rather than niche. Now, please explain which references here satisfy, in your view, our policies. "This article satisfies WP:CORP criteria...". But if you think it does because it has coverage in reliable sources, we have to discuss the said sources. You haven't' so far, outside of arguing that the interview with the CEO is not passing coverage. Even if I agree (and I am not sure I do), I do not believe that Junior Magazine (magazine) is reliable; it seems WP:QUESTIONABLE ("promotional in nature"). Ditto for all other sources here; they seem to fail RS. Because, in simple terms, they are PR spam. Look at those publications. They are never critical of the products they cover; they get paid to produce article-like ads. The Sussex magazine is even given away for free (and don't tell me you think the companies which front the funds do so without expecting a quid pro quo in exchange). Let me repeat: having reviewed the sources, I find them unreliable (poor fact checking, likely COI in the form of positive, paid-for coverage), and focusing on the company in passing (even you haven't presented any in-depth sources about it, outside the PR-like piece, not too long btw, in the form of [44]). Wikipedia is not Yellow Pages. This company hasn't attracted any serious coverage (it paid for some niche PR article-likes features). And short coverage of the company's marketing campaign in a reliable newspaper does not change the situation. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article really reads like an ad. The copy is full of press-release material. The stand-out material for me is the production company credit, but the article only tosses that in as an after thought. The article wants, I think, to sell shampoo, and not inform a reader. That's bad. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as promotional/advertising: The theoretical approach to deletion debates where one keeps if the subject could be discussed really abuts reality here, because we wouldn't keep an ad. Advertising is a deletion criterion, and this article is advertising. As I noted above, the most notable aspects of the company are not discussed and the product line up and wonderful child-friendly motives are. Hithladaeus (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't host advertisements even if what is being advertised is notable. Thincat (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertisement. I looked at many of the references - The Junior Magazine is put out by a marketing firm. The Daily Mail article (DM is a RS) is just a mention. #10 is a PR firm. #11 "award" is one of those "you pay to win" awards. #16 is a two-person site/blog. etc etc LaMona (talk) 20:01, 3 June 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael David Krueger

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

Poorly referenced BLP. I dream of horses (T) @ 17:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added both primary and secondary sources (like the church biography). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.220.142 (talk) 03:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The five offered sources are mighty flaky: two are commercial promotions (one for a CD recording, the other a concert announcement), and the remaining three (including that "church biography") are plainly written by the subject of the article—including a resumé and a personal photo on a blog. An attempt to find better sources via the template links turned up only a news item for a different person with the same name, who was charged in a hit-and-run in California. I see nothing supporting notability at all.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. References fail to meet WP:ARTIST: passing coverage, self-published sources, etc. Google News has "No results found for "Michael David Krueger". Not discussed in books, nor academic articles. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The biographical subject is an artist, but the article's claim to notability is as a business, but there aren't independent reliable sources attesting sufficient notability on either score at this time. I'm sure he's a talented person, but probably not in need of an encyclopedia article. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unfortunately, as shown with the current sources, there aren't any that are significant and coverage and my searches found nothing to fit this. SwisterTwister talk 20:31, 4 June 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chakradhar Swami

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

First of all, this article is not very easy to understand and searches to the best of my ability found nothing good. It appears both Marathi and Polish Wikis have what appear to be references but I'm not a speaker of either language so I'm not sure how good those sources are or if they're relevant at all. My concerns are the understandability and no apparent sources to support this, at least at English Wikipedia. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have identified additional sources on this personage. I also have a sense there are even more sources in Maratha and maybe Hindi, but have no knowledge of either language. A google search showed echos of such sources. We need much more work, especially on the movment that he is said to have founded. This movement still exists today, or at least existed past the founding of the current government in India in the 1940s. The article being hard to understand is not reason for deletion, but inprovement.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Johnpacklambert - unfortunately there is no Google translate for Maratha, but searching for his name brings up books and other hits. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Polish sources appear reliable (academic works, etc.). If he is mentioned in them, he is likely notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ Shad Innet (talk) 08:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC) There are only Polish links, and all of them to the books, which are hard to find and check. There is no English sources, strangely.[reply]

Comment – @Shad Innet: Per WP:GNG and WP:NOENG, sources do not have to be in English to establish notability or to verify content in articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:23, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I agree Shad Innet (talk) 10:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but needs careful rewriting. This looks like the case of someone who is obviously notable by any reasonable reckoning, but where it may be very difficult to disentangle legend from history. He seems to be generally recognised as the effective founder of the Mahanubhava sect, with one of its sacred texts, Leela Charitra (or, apparently more usually these days, Lilacharitra), being largely a purported account of his life and thought - and one of the founding classics of Marathi literature. One problem that this gives is that most accounts of Chakradhar are either in relation to Lilacharitra as literature or to Mahanubhav thought (which seems to have been in many ways revolutionary, promoting both caste and gender equality) and, where they give accounts of his life, may not be fully separating out historical and legendary elements (this, for instance). By the way, "Swami" is an honorific and not always used - it may be easier to find sources without it(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). PWilkinson (talk) 21:46, 7 June 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Harrison (singer)

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

Is she really notable? I think no; fails WP:MUSBIO. A singer with only 2-3 years of activity, who ”found success covering numerous songs on YouTube” it's not very impressive. There are thousands of such a ”singers” around the world. She has only 4 singles (two in 2015 and two in 2012) and one album, no one of them entered in charts. She's a promising singer, but at this moment most probbaly she is not enough notable for an article. XXN, 18:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per WP:TOOSOON. Quis separabit? 01:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing how she passes WP:MUSICBIO with the refs present. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TOOSOON - two sentences about famous people she's met does not help her case either. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In Generation Like, we get weird things. Meeting Perez Hilton is more of a path to commercial success than impressing a CBS A&R woman or man for the world of Youtub/ITuns. However, we're not there yet. We lag behind the commercial world and should lag behind it as a tertiary source of information. Not notable by the music guidelines. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Too soon IMHO. –Davey2010^Talk 21:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As evident with the current sources and my searches, there aren't any significant and notable ones. SwisterTwister talk 20:33, 4 June 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 recreation if stronger notability claims have been found--Ymblanter (talk) 07:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Christopher (politician Maryland)

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

Unelected politician failing WP:POLITICIAN Winner 42 Talk to me! 18:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the subject is a candidate and the article doesn't establish any other notability. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:GNG as an unelected politician. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - really unfortunate that he has that name, which makes sources harder to find, but it seems is currently running again, and also I am thinking he may qualify based on his military awards. I know the United Nations Medal is fairly common but unsure about how often some of the others are given. He has a pretty impressive resume - obviously that bio there is very promotional but I am assuming the basic facts are true. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi All. I am working diligently to include Mr. Christopher's notable contributions to his Wikipedia page. He has been a chief of staff in the Department of Interior and a Senior Advisor to former Senator Hillary Clinton. This is a work in progress and I am new as user. I understand the importance of maintaining standards and the reliability of data on Wikipedia. I will also continue to add citations, in compliance with Wikipedia requirements, over the coming days. Thanks in advance for your understanding and patience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TWLcomm--TWLcomm (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC) (talk--71.178.206.115 (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC) • contribs) 15:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per POLITICIAN and WP:SOLDIER. (I have no idea what "Commanding Officer in Europe" means, but it's obviously not the Commanding Officer, not if he was just a lt. col.) Subject to change if political/government positions are sourced and notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and sandbox: What would be necessary is independent reliable source coverage of him as himself. That's lacking at this time. Incidentally, on the article name it might be better as Warren Christopher (Maryland politician) or "Warren Christopher (b. 19--)" and then, if the article made, a disambiguation at Warren Christopher. The encyclopedia can handle the confusion, but the current name is a bit clunky, and it will only work if its subject remains local. I recommend the author putting the article in his or her user space and continuing to work on it. When there are RS articles on the subject, it can then be moved over. Hithladaeus (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete or move to userspace he ran for office in 2014, and did not win. Being a Lt. Col. ret. is not notable, unless the significant sourcing upholds notability. If User:TWLcomm, User:Jaorquina or someone else wants to take it to user space, source it and then submit it - I'm good with that.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unelected candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, and nothing else in this article is written substantively enough or sourced well enough to claim that he gets over some other notability rule instead of WP:NPOL. Even the insufficient number of sources that are here are all unreliable ones that cannot support a person's notability under WP:GNG — every last one of them is primary, user-generated or bloggy. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if a stronger notability claim and better sourcing come to pass. Bearcat (talk) 01:51, 3 June 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. But with the little participation, no prejudice to speedy renomination. Davewild (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chanidapa Pongsilpipat

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

Actress with questionable notability-all of the pages seem to be fan pages for her. Wgolf (talk) 18:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Currently, I am expanding the content of the article. References will be added in the process. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not going to be of much use here because I'm not a Thai speaker but the article has somewhat improved now with the sources added by the user above and my English sources found nothing and she has no IMDb page so it's possible much of it is going to be Thai. Although I have to say, she's hasn't had that many movies over the years so I'm not sure how much attention she has gotten in Thailand. SwisterTwister talk 01:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:54, 2 June 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Tsemberis

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

Notability is not inherited. All sources are about org, not person Gaijin42 (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep. Yes , notability is not inherited, but it this case Tsemberis is clearly a primary item of notability here. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. Created by a "drive-by" newcomer editor, the article requires attention of an experienced wikipedian, but a quick google search clearly shows that sources are plenty. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - As the "drive-by" newcomer, I apologize. I have actually been a wikipedia editor for over a decade, but it has been a long time and I am out of practice. I have been meaning to add the Washington Post article link and to convert the remaining sources into Wikipedia's suggested formats, but have not had time to do so. Than you for adding the article link. If you can refer me to tools that will help me efficiently convert the references I added into wikipedia links that would be terrific. Ms Chevrolet
    - See Talk:Sam Tsemberis for some advise. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per Staszek Lem —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has a profile in Carlos W. Pratt; Kenneth J. Gill; Nora M. Barrett (6 October 2006). Psychiatric Rehabilitation. Academic Press. p. 327. ISBN 978-0-08-046590-6. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help), non-trivial mentions in several books. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article is awful. Most of it is about "Housing First," which would present a good argument for "Redirect." The text of the argument -- ostensibly a biographical article, mind you -- never identifies the subject's place of birth or current residence. Furthermore, it talks about "then" he does this and "then" that, and he always does it "here." Here? Really? That's fantastic! This homelessness cure is here? I'll remember that when my employer folds, because surely "here" means here. It doesn't mean Washington, D.C., does it? I love how people do independent research, see that a person is discussed, and then say "keep," as if that were the end. This article isn't about the person, and it doesn't inform a reader. Hithladaeus (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There is WP:SUMMARY guideline which addresses the concern of unbalanced/duplicated text content. Yes, please remember him when your employer folds, your wife divorces you, your children forget you, you lose your right arm, so that you become a chronic alcoholic and a dirty tramp. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I can't find anything about him that is really about him, not the method he has put into place to house the homeless. The WaPo article is the closest thing to being about him, but it says little about him as a person. Until more biographical information comes along, a stand-alone article on him hasn't got enough content to justify it. There is no reason why a bio article might not be suitable in the future. LaMona (talk) 20:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there's this WaPo piece, and seemingly non-trivial mentions here and here. They are not exclusively interested in the housing project; they consider him as a person, and how his background impacts his work; they see him as notable besides his involvement in the project. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep also. I am agree with Staszek Lem Shad Innet (talk) 10:55, 9 June 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Telalim

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by creator, User:Elena Elk, with the following comment "deleting "proposal deletion" and "orphan". Reason: I think that it is enough editing articles. Also added: Links to external sources, cross-references to other sections of Wikipedia, other minor edits." I am afraid I am still not convinved by the refs present; the ones I can read seem to mention him in passing, or be not very reliable (some minor galleries selling his art, a site on tripod, etc.). If any sources are reliable and discuss him in depth, please list them here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment User:Elena Elk I am the author of this article and I give my arguments in more expanded form.

The artist in question - Alexander Telalim - was born in Ukraine, now living in Bulgaria. The main evidence of its importance published in Bulgarian, Russian and Ukrainian languages (given in descending order).
Assuming that such references to the English part of Wikipedia is not too important and understandable to the reader, I did not include them. It certainly was my mistake, for which I apologize and ask opponents to take into account the factor of my small experience in this matter. It was my first article for the English Wikipedia. Thanks to the just remark of Piotrus, it has allowed me to improve the text.

Now about the links, which were included.
1. Two link to site of artist. One link is a page with biography, second - to main page. The main page is empty, it really bad link, but I seems that I would put it as a link to artist website. The last of them can be delete.
2. A group of links from USA galleries. I selected the links to Gallery at the Consulate, because it gives one a some official status also. The exhibition at The Ukrainian National Museum in USA and an article about this exibition is a examples of so links. Of course, modern gallery is often carried out with the sale, so finding exactly an impartial source, such as the British Museum, it would be difficult.
Another link with short biography of artist was used as English text from source other than the author's site.
3. Then three links to known private galleries in Bulgaria and Russia were used as a links satisfying the both parameters: English text and famous modern gallery in these countries.
4. Next 6 links are a references to the radio and television programs, as well as articles in the official media in Bulgaria, which were dedicated to the artist Alexander Telalim. I selected the only official state television and radio channels in Bulgaria (eg "Bulgarian National Radio" or "National Bulgarian TV"), as their significance seems to me a priority.
Unfortunately, the Internet in Ukraine was a very weak during youth Alexander Telalim. Good links are hard to find now and there are no English texts, so I not used those ones. But it's is may be done easily, if necessary.
5. In Eastern Europe there is another indication of the importance of artists - is the inclusion of the so-called "National Union of Artists." Selection to pass is fairly strict rules and Alexander Telalim has long been a member of the Bulgarian Union of Artists. (This is indicated).
6. Then I found link to one of the more significant exhibitions. It was The "Masters of Watercolours" in St. Petersburg in 2015 (with a Exibition participants catalogue).
7. Artist has a more than 60 solo exhibitions around the world, including the world-famous galleries in the US, EU and Japan. It was another argument, which allowed me to believe his fame enough for inclusion in Wikipedia.
(added) 8.The last links are the russian articles from different sites

Finally, if there are suspicions of my personal interest, I would like to just dismiss them. I am interested in South Russian school of art, the center of which is located in Odessa (modern Ukraine). I intend to write a series of articles about her artists, but the work is progressing too slow because of my employment elsewhere.
Not more than a few days ago, I posted an article about the Grekov Odessa Art school, today or tomorrow I will write about another representative of this school, the artist Yuri Salko, who became famous as a new talent in the field of icons in the Byzantine style.
I understand that the "myself" link is not a good argument for Wikipedia, but please note that my native language - Russian, Bulgarian and Ukrainian, so I can find information about these people in short order.
If my links are not insufficient, I will put all its my forces to find more serious, however, I would like to understand what could be more serious than the government media conducted an interviews, lasting more than an hour? If this is not proof of the popularity and significance, what is the evidence?

P.S. I watched many articles about the artists from Eastern Europe and Russia, and I find that the more links there are simply not available or unreliable. I would like to understand why this article is motivated by a desire to remove it? As a rule, if the article does not have reliable information, it is asked to provide. However, the repeated removal requirement is puzzling, and I would like to understand the reason for such a drastic requirement? Elena Elk (talk) 04:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see several refs that are not in passing, including [45] and [46] with Bulgarian National Radio; interviews [47], [48], lengthy profile/appearance on Bulgarian television program [49], and exhibition at the Ukrainian National Museum [50]. I don't know if there are more out there; these are the ones already listed on the article, but not mentioned in your summary of sources when you created this AfD. I'm also curious why this article should be deleted. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More refs - [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56] —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Google hits are not enough. Which of those are not WP:QUESTIONABLE? National Radio seems best, but problematic; it wasn't a program about him by some scholars or critics; those were interviews with him. As such, those have problems with WP:RS: he is a primary source about himself, after all. One could argue that the mere fact of being invited establishes notability, but this is, as far as I know, not supported by policy, and I an hesitant to support it (the interviews where, btw, how long? 1 minute? Half an hour?). All other unreliable sources aside (galleries selling or otherwise benefiting from his works are not independent sources; just like book publishers/bookstores cannot be sufficient sources for a book's notability). Granted, WP:ARTIST does state that if his work " has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition", but then we need to discuss what is a significant exhibition (I'd say one that is notable, i.e. has attracted major coverage, which is not what I see for the exhibitions listed in this article). Finally, the claim that membership in Union of Bulgarian Artists (an article of dubious notability itself as written, through a quick search shows it to be notable otherwise) is anything extra-ordinary needs to be backed up with sources. Is this a reputable organizations with selective membership? I am not seeing it; and as such I am not ready to accept the fact that membership in it conveys notability. In the end, keep in mind not all artists are notable, and nothing I see here suggests to me that this person is ready to be in an encyclopedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dude these are not "Google hits" but coverage of him and not a single one is from a gallery either, so I really don't what you're talking about. I can understand not everybody can read Cyrillic but you can at least bother to use Google Translate. The only one that is not from an independent news source is this one [57] from the City of Chicago's Sister Cities partnership website (as Kyiv is a sister city), and that's an announcement from the National Museum of Ukraine. And it's even in English. I have never read anywhere or heard anyone suggest that a Q&A or an interview (written or live) does not count as coverage toward GNG. A Q&A done with a RS is not considered a primary source except for the purpose of specific content/claim that would need to be subject to additional verification (such as claim of record company profits etc). You state merely being invited to be featured in an interview with a RS does not count toward GNG as this is "not supported by policy." ORLY? What policy is that? Because it's not in any Wikipedia policy, and I'm sorry to say I don't recognize WP:THINGSPIOTRIMAGINES as policy :-( Considering Q&A format interviews are very common and are frequently referenced, surely this specific rule you think exists would be in the guideline, somewhere.... And by "the interviews where" do you mean where can you find the radio interview??? Instructions: 1) open your eyes (please do not skip this step) 2) go to the page [[58]] 3) look at the page (also important) 4) click the triangle PLAY button on the big media player on the page. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The duration of the interview in these sources varies from half an hour to two hours.

On membership in the Union of Artists of Bulgaria written here:
http://www.sbhart.com/bg/members/letter/%D0%A2/p/20#letter

or here: http://www.sbhart.com/en/members/letter/T/p/20#letter

I can to agree that this source may be given also, but I did not see that in other articles about the artists of Eastern Europe.

The book, which was cited in the references, not just a result of publication of his works, but the catalog of one of the most famous exhibition of masters of watercolors in the world. In my opinion, is really proof of the author's fame. Beginners or unknown masters there just are not included.

In some cases I cite and link to the both: exhibition and reviews. I described it in detail above. I can increase the number of some links to 10-20 pieces, but I have to take reviews in Bulgarian, Ukrainian and Russian languages, which is not too good for the English Wikipedia.

With all due respect to the search engines, especially Google, I want to note that this is not the best argument for the encyclopedia, also should take into account that the search should be conducted in the national languages and national offices of Google.

It seems a not serious argument that you do not know about the complexity of admission to the National Artists Union in Eastern Europe. If you do not have this information, it can be read anywhere, in Google or Wikipedia, or on cite http://www.sbhart.com/en, or about history of art at former socialist countries.

I will summarize. I put links to long radio and TV shows with the artist, and in the presence of Bulgarian critics and art historians. I put links and list important exhibitions outside Bulgaria.

I bring proof of adoption of the selective union of artists.

I quote the article, which tells about the artist in large galleries.

I cite references to articles published on the Internet, completely dedicated to the work of the artist.

What do I need more?

Which exhibition?

If I give you a long list of links to reviews on the Bulgarian or Russian, it will be the argument of fame?

The number of personal exhibitions is one of the most important arguments the significance of the artist. I chose of Telalim first because it is very large. Why is it that no argument? Articles is appearing in each(!) exibition in the national languages.

Finally, I repeat my question - why require removal article, but not correction?

Elena Elk (talk) 07:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Elk, ne volnyites ponaprasnu, prime4aniya bolee 4em dostato4no! on 4oknuty 😁 —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Elena Elk (talk) 09:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets the notability guidelines for artists. Given the oddity of the prose in the article, I can understand why it was initially listed, but the references added show that the artist is notable. I will at least clean the English. (I'm not going to do much or anything about its claims, though, as all my artists have been dead a few hundred years.) Hithladaeus (talk) 12:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Initially, the article may be not contain a number of links, but now everything is in order. My little search in the Bulgarian network shows popularity of the artist adequately.

Shad Innet (talk) 08:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the only reliable source in the article is Bulgarian National Radion, and, as Piotrus states, even this source is problematic.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This source is not problematic, as is the direct link to it. In addition, there are links to Bulgarian television. Shad Innet (talk) 08:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This ^[1], for example, the TV program of 55 minutes about the artist and his works by the Bulgarian state television.

Comment. This is likely an alt account of Elena Elk, registered on 2 June.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do not have any relation to this account Shad Innet (talk) 09:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. May be you are a different account Piotrus? )) I think so due to nobody spoke against article in this discussions a whole week. Piotrus offers all the time to the deletion of most pages in this poorly versed in the link. No?

I will not deny that I am know the newcomer Elena Elk, and even working in the same place, but we are different people.

It's not my nick. Elena Elk (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a dozen references to an interview with the artist, and reviews of his work. In the list are Bulgaria TV (two channels) and TV of Ukraine, some of the local channels in Chicago (I don't know this channel). Still not enough? Shad Innet (talk) 09:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Shad Innet (talk) 10:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC) You know, this is not my style, but I shall explain. I do not understand why Piotrus demanded the delete of the article. If we look at the editing history, we can see that the first author put only English links. This is a fairly common mistake for beginners who are trying to extend the non-English culture in the English Wikipedia.[reply]

And I think our task, my task - to support these people and help them correct their mistakes. We will gain new good editor and a lot of new pages in the future.
Instead of Piotrus put the page for deletion without seeing the previous changes.
Мандичка well although somewhat ill qualified. He said all the items and added a lot of links (thanks, some of them I put in the article today).
Among the options - an interview with state television channels in Ukraine and Bulgaria are probably small private channel in Chicago. Several references to the broadcast. All of them are quite a long period, which is already talking about the significance of the artist.
If you look at the headlines of articles, we see that the authors have no doubt of the importance of the artist. The extent that Izmail is the title "us goes a famous artist", for example. Note one that Izmail - it is Ukraine but Alexander Telalim lives in Bulgaria.
In my opinion, this article is already an overabundance of significant links, although I personally would link them with text or otherwise distributed, but this is a big job.
Instead of the conversation is continued about the removal and furthermore starts transition to the individual. I work together with Elena at the same institute. Those interested can see the link to our place of work https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budker_Institute_of_Nuclear_Physics
We have dozens of people write articles for Wikipedia, and I would be a shame to lose another quite good author. By the way, the alternate nickname Elena is widely known, it is right in her account - is Элена Элк, that means the same thing, but is written in Cyrillic.
I do not regret the author's call - she does not need it. But look closely enough links to understand that they have too much rather than "not enough." I note that this criticism does not even look.
DixiShad Innet (talk) 10:16, 9 June 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. slakr^\ talk / 06:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Van Kirk

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:WCS100 (creator) with the following edit summary: "Has more than a few references and I'm finding several more in a Google search. We better play this out via AfD before we toss this much content". Well, we are here now; I don't see any refs that add proper, reliable, in-depth coverage. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Piotrus, I think you'd be aware by now that AfD isn't for articles that don't have references that "add proper, reliable, in-depth coverage." AfD is for determining if a subject is notable or not and it doesn't appear that your nomination has done any of the WP:BEFORE work to determine that. A nomination that only points out my disagreement with a PROD seems as close to a non-argument as you can get.

Here are a list of references I found in just a few minutes that aren't included in the list already found in the article. In depth interview, LA Weekly coverage of Van Kirk's work, Book about Van Kirk being a "notable", Subject becomes Chili's spokesperson.

Outside of these references and the ones in the article, it seems clear to me, based on the articles about him or pointing him out in USA Today, Variety, LA Weekly, AV Club, and Splitsider, that the subject of this article plays notable role in area of comedy podcasts. He's also a current performer for Upright Citizens Brigade which was started by and produces notable members regularly. He also is a writer for the news website www.Cover32.com. I personally think that he satisfies WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO (point 2) with the independent and significant coverage form reliable sources but I also feel that the subject satisfies point 3 of WP:ENTERTAINER in that his body of work on specific podcasts has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. WCS100 (talk) 01:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More for Yahoo Movies and Variety about a show the subject writes. WCS100 (talk) 01:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WCS100: You are right this is about notability. And notability does not only require sources, it requires reliable sources. And what I am saying is not that this article is unreferenced (which, I agree with you, is not an AfD problem), but rather, than the existing references I see (including ones you presented) are not reliable, and thus do not help to establish the subject's notability.

Let's start with your book finding. Following your link I cannot get a preview view, but the publisher is Emereo Publishing. From [59]: "So what Roebuck/Tebbo/ Emereo have done is take publically available and randomly selected Wikipedia articles and charge for it." I am afraid that your source is nothing but a printed fork of our article(s).

Next, you find [60]. Well, it may be an in-depth interview; it also appears to be a podcast, an audio-version of blog.

[61] LA Weekly passes RS test; but our subject fails at any kind of in-depth, substanial coverage - he is mentioned there in passing, in a single sentence plus picture caption.

[62] Next, we have a short news blurb in a regional, niche website (" centralized agency founded to share knowledge of "bureau-approved" comedy throughout the Greater Los Angeles area and spread joy in the form of live comedy to all citizens we can possibly reach."). That fails WP:QUESTIONABLE and WP:AUD.

So, unless you can present sources that show him passing GNG/ARTIST, AfD is the right place for him to be. And please, don't just spam links here, but provide a review of them: explain why the source is reliable, and the extent of their coverage of the subject (passing mentions do not count). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any substantial sources about him. The best so far is the LA Weekly review of a show he starred in [63], but that's only one source. The refs here are either links to his "performances" (as podcasts), or mentions. The Comedy Bureau is a blog. Link #9 is unrelated (and an empty page). I can't find a reason to keep this, unless someone discovers a few more RS. LaMona (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Simple search shows me that this actor is widely known not only in his country. I believe that the requirements to finalize the article is enough. Shad Innet (talk) 10:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply being in Google is not enough to prove notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 00:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I searched online and found nothing that suggests the subject meets WP:ENTERTAINER criteria. He gets some coverage as a comedian, but no more than the vast majority of other comedians. Maybe someday he will be notable, but not yet.--Rpclod (talk) 03:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: This fellow is very much on the edge of the line between sufficient and insufficient note by independent RS. I think, if we scrutinize every source, we can find imperfections, but, taken all in all, they indicate so many discussions that the comedian either passes or is going to pass within a few months. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you are saying WP:TOOSOON, which is an argument for deletion and restoration at a future date. We don't keep articles because we think someone is going to be notable in the near future. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I appreciate the help to a newbie, but I actually wasn't saying that. I was suggesting that this person's career is moving so quickly that "TOOSOON" may not be relevant. I did not want to invoke that because the number of appearances and comments he is receiving in the past year, on different platforms, makes it seem like a fairly safe bet. I could be wrong. I often am. However, I do try to work on a "benefit of the doubt goes toward keep." My benefit of doubt is less than a lot of people's, but it still exists. One person thinks it's gullibility, another thinks its cynicism, but I think it's a good faith judgment. (If the guidelines could make the calls by themselves, we people wouldn't be necessary.) Hithladaeus (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Hithladaeus: Would you mind telling me which of the sources that mention him seem reliable? Please check my review of sources I posted above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:05, 17 June 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Mica

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

No real indication of notability as defined by WP:MUSBIO or WP:BIO; passing mention in a tabloid article hardly rises to the standards set by those policies.

And if he really did win the award the article claims he won — well, some fifteen awards are handed out annually at the Romanian Music Awards, and while I can see "best album" meeting the "major music award" standard of WP:MUSBIO point 8, I have a harder time seeing "best new act" in the same category. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable refs that I can see. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he had a song place on Romania's charts so qualifies per WP:MUSICBIO —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an unreferenced claim, however. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: The "contract" he was under was with a company whose name is identical to a vanity music service in the rest of the world. The article says "it peaked on the charts," but what charts? Was this the downloads chart, the sales chart, the radio play chart? The only potentially verifiable fact is in a pudding of promotion and puffery. It gets very hard to trust a vague potential fact when it swims in a sea of undoubted boosterism. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can someone fluent in Romanian check [64] and [65]. Looks like they might show notability, cannot find claim they charted in Romania though. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the first link, from Adevărul, is certainly reliable, but not especially edifying. It talks about Cătălin Botezatu handing out an award and being distracted by a blonde. And, yes, at the end it does mention in passing that the award in question was given to Mica. As to the second link, I'm a bit skeptical about the reliability of yabbmusic.ro. In any event, the article deals with a certain Eli launching a video clip in which Mica also participates; the only in-depth mention of Mica is a quote by Eli: "I'm a friend of Alex's, we've known each other for a very long time because we're from the same city", etc, etc. Given that Eli himself doesn't seem notable, I don't see this one as a meaningful indication of notability either. - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so they were giving out an award, not receiving one? If they'd been receiving a reward for best act, then keep, but as not, then Delete. Unless of course someone can verify he reached the Romanian charts. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Clearly one of the biggest successes in recent Romanian pop music. The hit "Dalinda" was one of the biggest Romanian hits in 2012. The music video also attracted more than 21 million views, very respectable for a Romanian-language song. I have added many references as well to article since it was nominated for deletion. His most recent hit as a featured artist in Eli's "Nu mai cred in tine" is on the same track and has attracted around 7 milllion views in a brief 2 months. The article can be trimmed off of unnecessary detail, but I don't know what is the interest of English Wikipedia in deleting many such artists who are so notable in their own countries as if they are undeserving of international attention. I know language may be a hurdle for colleagues with no knowledge of languages, but I think non-English language artists are as deserving as English language artists for coverage, although references are much harder to analyze. werldwayd (talk) 08:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Werldwayd: Can you actually find reliable sources that they charted in Romania? Because if they did, then they should be kept, but I couldn't find any sources for it. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In answer, see a snapshot of the Romanian chart where "Dalinda" is at number 10 on week April 30 – May 6 2012 http://romanianchart.blogspot.ca/2012/05/romanian-chart-40-edition-182012.html The song also charted in Bulgaria peaking at number 13 See: http://top40-charts.com/song.php?sid=33706 werldwayd (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Switch to Keep per above, passes WP:NMUSIC. I added these sources to the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- werldwayd, if this guy were that prominent as your hyperbolic "clearly one of the biggest successes in recent Romanian pop music" suggests, he'd be the subject of "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician [himself]". He isn't; thus far, all you've been able to adduce is a blog post, a tabloid article and a piece of cruft. So let's tone down the rhetoric a bit: he's (probably) had one mildly successful song, and that's it.
- Joseph2302, do note the wording of WP:MUSICBIO: passing the criteria indicates the subject may be notable. Strictly speaking, you could argue he is, based on having had one song in the top 20. Myself, I tend to believe a biographical article should have at least some indication of coverage in "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician". Given that such coverage is glaringly lacking, I still question the viability of the article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the obvious significance tests - known among people in other countries.

http://newmuz.net/5396-alex-mica-dalinda.html I will translate the text from site (rus):

"And again on the DFM Radio Romania charges! This time, the news hit song musical prodigy, a composer from Romania Alex Mick (Alex Mica). This track is called Dalinda."

This is not a significant link, right. The author has to find meaningful. But I am against the removal of the singer, which even I know, despite the fact that nobody heard from Romania. Shad Innet (talk) 10:52, 9 June 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) 03:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suleman Khateeb

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

Non-notable Ziad (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure - The Urdu called him famed. welsh (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is mentioned in passing in one book: Enlite. Light Publications. 1967. p. 52. Arbab-e-Zouq (study circle of literati) was attended by leading humorists and satirists, including Fi- kar Tanousi, Yousuf Nazim, Shams Minai, Suleman Khateeb, Dilawar Figar, Rasheed Querishi and Gulfam Badayum Given the newspaper sources in the article, as noted by welsh, and keeping WP:SYSTEMICBIAS in mind, this seems likely other, non-English sources exist. I make my vote, however, based on the newspaper sources in English. If they are analyzed and found wanting, or if Indian sources are not found, do ping me and I'll reconsider this topic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if there may be scant info on him in English, he seems notable enough in Urdu that he was still somebody famous and notable, enough so that The Hindu has mentioned him. Solntsa90 (talk) 00:23, 9 June 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. Consensus is that this is not an appropriate list. Davewild (talk) 06:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of operating systems for children

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

This list is crafted based on a set of arbitrary criteria with no citations on what should qualify as an operating system for children, thus failing to meet WP:LISTN L Faraone 00:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete invented info/original research/unreferenced/no notability and possibly promo - there is no main article about operating systems for children. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is precedent for lists of software/products, but the qualification for them is almost always that they pass notability GNG enough to merit an article and/or that they've received enough coverage to at least warrant being mentioned on the list. This specific list seems to set its own rules for inclusion, one of which is that it is "actively maintained & supported." This has never been something that would disqualify something from a list on Wikipedia and it's quite common for lists to include software that is no longer maintained or supported. That aside, we have to look at whether or not there's really anything here that would warrant a list. Offhand I'm not seeing anything and the qualifications for inclusion seem to be fairly loose, given that Leapster is on the list. I suppose that since it does have an OS and it's aimed towards children it could technically belong on the list, but I don't know that it's really an OS in the same way that some of the others (like Edubuntu) are OS systems. This gives off the impression that the only two real qualifications for the list is that the product has to be aimed at children and that it has to be able to run electronically. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If other articles like this exist, then they're bad ideas, too. The title promises a "comparison" -- by what criterion? There are loads of assumptions in any "comparison." For example, I might want to know about the load time of each, or the nation of origin, or how many left handed brunettes worked on each. There is an include/exclude criterion that is arbitrary, as @Tokyogirl79 points out, but there are even more silent criteria in the points of comparison. This matters because the most vital silence is "comparison to determine which is best" is implied. The usefulness of this article would be as a consumer guide, and we're not in any position to be that. If it doesn't go to the consumer guide form, it becomes undigested information in a table. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think this is a good idea for an article, but I did locate two sources: this article from PC World and this article from Network World. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:15, 5 June 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. There is no consensus on whether the subject of the article is notable independent of his son. Davewild (talk) 06:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Adams, Sr.

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

Delete or merge with Gerry Adams; obviously non-notable in own right. Only notable as father of Gerry Adams. Quis separabit? 00:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The claim to notability would be as an important figure in the PIRA in his own right. The Guardian describes him as "important in the emergence of the Provisional IRA in 1970" as well as a "seminal" influence on his son's politics.[66] The Times ("Militant Irish republican who helped to mould the Provisional IRA and influenced his son’s hard line")[67] and (UK) Independent[68] also carried obituaries though the latter doesn't give him much importance except through his son. Colapeninsula (talk) 09:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"as well as a "seminal" influence on his son's politics." -- sorry but notability is not inherited -- in either direction. Quis separabit? 22:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Independent also carried obituaries though the latter doesn't give him much importance except through his son". Quis separabit? 22:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an influence on the political thinking of an important political figure, that seems to be a claim to notability, whether or not he's your son. I'm also not sure why you're quoting random bits from my reply; it looks a bit aggressive, or at best psittacine. Colapeninsula (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am sure Adams Sr was a veritable Machiavelli. As for the quotes, hey, I am just trying to bolster my argument using street alley tabloid tactics. Now that you mention it, I do suffer from psittacinism. Yours, Quis separabit? 12:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough independent coverage to justify the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously due to significant coverage. Those claiming "notability is not inherited" do not understand the essay they are quoting. Le petit fromage (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given the Guardian and Times descriptions and indications of his role in the development of the Provisional IRA. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If a major newspaper claims "was important in the emergence of the Provisional IRA in 1970", it seems sufficient. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not "significant coverage" about the subject, that's one journalist making a throwaway statement that a person played a significant role. Carrite (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Guardian has coverage, but there are consistent references to his role these days. I know that BBC World Service, the last time it talked about Gerry Adams (that I heard), talked about his father's having been involved in the PIRA. (I.e. if I know he was active in PIRA, then there's coverage, because I don't tune in on that history.) Hithladaeus (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others as WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Run of the mill Provisional IRA militant with a famous son, in the press only for family sexual abuse charges, which are only deemed newsworthy because of the son. NOTINHERITED. Carrite (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- He strikes me as rather ordinary IRA activist, whose main significance is having a notable son. Notability is not inherited. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 6 June 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. Davewild (talk) 06:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dewey Pegno & Kramarsky LLP

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

It seems like a lot of these articles are not RS. Lots of puffery here, not sure a law firm of 16 people should be here, especially with the lack of adequate sourcing. Looks like this was PRODed before, so best to nominate to get a better discussion. Jeremy112233 ^{(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?)} 00:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PROD happened here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dewey_Pegno_and_Kramarsky_LLP&action=edit&redlink=1

Delete. Based on what I've found so far, I don't think this small firm has the significant coverage, or rises to the significance, we generally expect for law firms to get their own articles here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this type of an article is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "Litigation boutique" is a somewhat recent term of art, and it almost guarantees a lack of notability, as the point to such firms is that they try to stay somewhat small. They aim for high talent, but they're not big on getting a profile in independent press. Lacks notability from independent coverage, but that's nearly guaranteed. That doesn't mean it's not high profile in the world of NYC litigators, but it does mean it's not encyclopedic. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the firm is notable because it has an interesting practice, low growth to focus on profile cases like the Empire State Building IPO and Credit Suisse trade secrets. The cases are discussed widely online and in print publications. I propose to write about the individual notable cases with references to this law firm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:ARTanascio|ARTanascio (talk)ARTanascio]] (talk • contribs) 15:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More inclined to delete as there aren't any significant and notable sources with searches here, here, here and here; nothing outstanding. SwisterTwister talk 20:39, 4 June 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reakash walters

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

Article about an unelected candidate that fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails above policies; at best it's WP:TOOSOON for him to be in an encyclopedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Her Bearcat (talk) 00:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The politician is in the aspirational phase, so no notability. In addition, the article is misnamed, so whoever wrote it didn't even care enough to name it Reakash Walters. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So they're in the running to become a party candidate for an election. Definitely fails WP:TOOSOON, WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unelected candidates for office do not pass WP:NPOL just for being candidates, either in a party's internal primary/nomination contest or on the general election ballot — if you cannot credibly and reliably source that she already passed a Wikipedia inclusion rule for some other reason before she became a candidate, then she does not become eligible for an article on here until she wins the election (and just to clarify in case there's still any doubt, it's the big enchilada on October 19 that she has to win to qualify for an article on here, not just the nomination.) And nothing else in the article either claims or sources anything that would put her over a different notability rule instead of NPOL. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in October if she wins the seat. Bearcat (talk) 00:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not being notable, as shown above. RoadWarrior445 (talk) 06:20, 7 June 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 Vigo County School Corporation. Davewild (talk) 06:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honey Creek Middle School

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

School fails WP:ORG and most likely WP:GNG too. There is virtually no coverage of the school in detail in WP:RS. What little coverage in local meida is not in detail. The only national coverage was a mention of a teacher in an article on the top 100 teachers in USA Today. Coverage of a teacher at the school does not equate to coverage of the school. It had been redirected to the local school district for nearly two years til an editor came along today and restored it. Per school article guidelines and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, re-establishing the redirect is a perfectly acceptable outcome for me. John from Idegon (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 02:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A middle school that doesn't have notability. The article says. . . it's a middle school with things to brag about, which is what every middle school can say. It's also, I'm pretty sure, not the only "Honey Creek Middle School" in the U.S., so a redirect may not be the best idea. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable middle school, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP, doesn't pass WP:NSCHOOL as it's not a secondary school (high school to use the US term). Joseph2302 (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per long standing precedent documented at OUTCOMES and as suggested by nominator, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kudpung (talk • contribs) 16:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Terre Haute, Indiana~~ Vigo County School Corporation per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010^Talk 21:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT - Davey2010, are you opposing redirect to Vigo County School Corporation, the prior redirect? Generally, if a district article exits, that is the usual target. We only go to the municipalities if there is not a district article. John from Idegon (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops sorry John from Idegon - I hadn't looked through the history - Just assumed you meant Terre Haut, Absolutely agree redirecting to the district as that's usually the preferred option :). –Davey2010^Talk 23:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vigo County School Corporation - This looks to me like a middle school permastub with marginal notability at best. If there is another "Honey Creek Middle School", we can create a hatnote at the target article, or perhaps convert to a disambiguation page. Either way, it would be helpful to direct readers to a location that at least discusses these schools. Mz7 (talk) 02:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the district, as usual. No need to delete altogether. We should do as we usually do with these--it's a workable compromise. DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vigo County School Corporation. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 21:53, 3 June 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 Light rail in North America. Davewild (talk) 07:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Politics of light rail in North America

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

The topic "Politics of light rail in North America" is -- potentially notable. But the article is a mess, it has been a mess for years, and no one seems interested in improving it.

At one time the article was much longer -- however that excised material was unreferenced original research and editorializing.

In 2013 I recommended the article be merged or redirected back to Light rail in North America. Discussion here. That is still my preferred outcome. Geo Swan (talk) 04:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per nom: The article as it exists is an essayistic response to a single book, more than anything else, and a particular, popular, conservative attack on light rail. The politics of light rail in the U.S. don't have anything to do with convenience or profit, because those are not political factors. Those are commercial factors. The political factor is the conservative argument that all government must meet the standards of business (cost nothing, make a profit, compete with free market alternatives) and assumptions about government itself (that there shouldn't be any moral role for government, because that's "interference"). Therefore, this may not need to be merged, because it's not OR, but it's a polemic. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge carefully. Non-neutral statements need to be attributed. -- Beland (talk) 19:56, 9 June 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.

^ "tv Bulgaria".

[1] "tv Bulgaria".

[1]