Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscernible Unsorted

< 8 July	10 July >

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--Ymblanter (talk) 09:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Justin La Croix

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

Republican running for election in November against the Democrat incumbent, but not elected to anything yet, nor notable per WP:POLITICIAN or WP:BIO, and no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. I can't even find any local press coverage of his candidacy online. OnionRing (talk) 10:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 10:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 10:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 10:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being an as-yet-unelected candidate for office does not get a person into Wikipedia in and of itself — as always, if you cannot make a credible and properly sourced case that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he has to win the election, not merely run in it, to attain notability on the basis of the election. Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected candidates for state legislatures are not notable. If he wins in Novembmer, La Croix will be notable, but he is not notable now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He can have an article if he wins in November. But I have rarely searched a candidate and found less press coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The nomination and the delete votes are based on Wikipedia guidelines while the keep votes are not. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Melnick

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

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

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

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

Sorry, but this person does not appear to be notable by our standards, showing no sign of meeting either WP:PROF or WP:ARTIST. Where is the independent in-depth coverage of her life and work? I couldn't find it; it certainly isn't a biography on the webpage of an online gallery which sells her prints. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I apologize and should have put in more solid information and write ups, as per her exhibitions before this was posted.. Would suggest that i have done that with notability established. Masterknighted (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, although the article needs work...Modernist (talk) 16:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:ARTIST there is need for multiple, reliable sources - supporting links and sourcing is at best vague, unreliable, and unremarkable in origin. Neither a Bachelor's nor a Master's degree substantiates notoriety. No national or notable exhibition participation substantiated. True peer review is unsupported. Nikto wha? 03:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - notability has been established through multiple reports of varied exhibtionsMasterknighted (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Already !voted above. freshacconci talk to me 11:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Joan Melnick has been widely exhibited in the USA and abroad. It's appropriate for info about her to be available on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigGuy (talk • contribs) 23:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I understand that argument for keeping is exhibition history. I couldn't find anything that may satisfy WP:ARTIST 4b criteria: has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition. I may be mistaken and open to be corrected, but now it's a delete. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep notable and worth keeping...~~ Modernist (talk) 11:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC) Double vote struck through by me. Carrite (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As above - notable and worth keeping...Modernist (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- The exhibition in which the artist waa awarded and which was juried by among others Louise Nevelson and Sam Hunter is a notable exhibition and was covered in the pressMasterknighted (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources provided rise to the level of significant critical attention. Fails WP:ARTIST. Some sources are press releases or announcements of exhibitions, not critical reviews. No museum collections, or exhibits in public galleries. I can't find anything that shows that the Second Intercollegiate exhibition of student art is a notable exhibition. when looking at the references, I find that

http://www.fitnyc.edu/interior-design/faculty.php is a primary source that shows that she is a member of the faculty. It does not, however, support the claim that she is an "internationally exhibited" artist.
http://www.rogallery.com/Melnick_Joan/melnick-bio.html is a primary source, and not indenpendent
http://www.nytimes.com/1978/04/23/archives/arts-and-leisure-guide-theater-of-special-interest-dance-week-funny.html?nytmobile=0 is an gallery listing, not a review that shows that her work was shown at the Hansen gallery, which is not a notable gallery.
https://www.amazon.com/Coral-3/dp/B00XLYKX4A shows that a lithography by her is for sale on Amazon for $300, and some other prints by her. It does not support the claim that she exhibited in the Levitan gallery, which is also not a notable gallery.
https://books.google.ca/books?id=5tICAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA32&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false is an announcemt in a gallery listing, not a review, that shows that she was in a group show with Elwood Howell at Hansen.
https://books.google.com/books?id=Ml8WAQAAMAAJ is another gallery listing. Art Now was a gallery guide.
http://www.norwalkpark.org/uploads/files/MaritimeSep12Exhibit.pdf is a press release that provides the quote for "vibrant coral structures through mixed media applications and compositions", which shows that this comment on her work is not from an independent, reliable source.
http://www.lib.uiowa.edu/scua/msc/tomsc800/msc764/msc764-seriesii-galleryannouncements.html is a listing of gallery announcements collected by the uiowa, that mentions that Melnick was in a group show at Levitan gallery. That's a press release or gallery invitation.
https://www.onekingslane.com/p/4419476-coral-2-by-joan-melnick is a blog by an affiliate (Melnick's rep, rogallery) of an interior design firm. That makes is a primary source.
http://www.mutualart.com/Artwork/Swiss-Road/3B25868C53C4CE96 is an auction site that shows that one of her 1979 serigraphs came up at an auction in 2014. It has links to other works by Melnick that have also been at auction. While this is not one of the criteria directly in WP:ARTIST, I do think that this may be the closest thing to establishing notability.
https://www.newspapers.com/image/86034217/ (non-free, but I did review it) looks like an actual review in the Kingston Daily Freeman, it shows a photo of Melnick with an intaglio print that won 3rd prize in the second Intercollegiate Exhibition of student art, but the article discusses the exhibition, the sponsoring fraternity, then catalogue, etc., but not the work of Melnick.
http://www.thehour.com/news/article/Senses-of-SoNo-A-new-exhibit-at-Maritime-Parking-8193025.php is a review in a local newspaper of a group show with other non-notable artists at the South Norwalk Parking Authority. I think it is likely that Lake did not interview the curator to get the quote, but quoted the press release instead. In other words, this is a rehash of a press release, not a critical review.

The subject of this article fails WP:ARTIST in every way possible: The artist is not regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. Se is not is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. Se has not created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work, and her work has not been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Her work has not has become a significant monument, has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, has not won significant critical attention (it hasn't received any critical attention at all), and is not is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Mduvekot (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable resources and sources. Tenured professor at the Fashion Institute of Technology, renowned artist in multiple exhibits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgewienbarg (talk • contribs) 18:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found evidence that she's been exhibiting since the late 1970s, but no actual in-depth coverage of her work in reliable independent sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment _ The Kingston newspaper review does talk about Melnick being awarded and the New York Times though it may be a listing it is not an advertisement and they would not have given notice to the gallery or tne artist if they did not deem them notableMasterknighted (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

masternighted, I'll reply on your talk page. Mduvekot (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources too feeble to support notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Exibited at prominent galleries; seems at least as notable as a number of minor sportspersons who have WP articles.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that notability standards for sports people are abysmal, but this does not mean that those for artists should be so as well. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Other non-notable articles existing is considered to be an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. --Slashme (talk) 06:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This artist is clearly notable she has auction results and has been exhibited and written aboutBrainplanner (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How does this satisfy WP:Artist? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Delete I am unable to find any significant coverage in reliable independent sources. This fails GNG for sure. Falling back on WP:PROF or WP:ARTIST I cannot see any reason the subject would satisfy it. I am particularly convinced by the explanation of Mduvekot above. In addition, none of the keep votes have actually provided any evidence that she is notable - and demonstrating notability requires verifiable evidence. I see none at the moment. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under criterion G7. Any editor attempting to recreate the page would be well advised to make sure that the article is based on secondary sources well removed from the editor, publisher, and other related parties. —C.Fred (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Creature's Cookbook

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

Fails WP:GNG with no secondary sources, does not meet any criteria of WP:BKCRIT. I can't find anything other than press releases online. McGeddon (talk) 09:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources exist and have been added to. The article has 4 references. It should not be deleted based upon this criteria — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristina Meister (talk • contribs) 09:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are primary sources (the book's website, the publisher's Facebook page, a press release). You can click the WP:GNG link to find out about secondary sources - all Wikipedia articles require "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". --McGeddon (talk) 09:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A secondary source has been added. a tertiary website covering the release of the book. When discussing a press release written by someone, the only source that exists is the press release in question. There are no secondary sources for the "plot" of the book, and that is in the book itself. There are no secondary sources for publishing data except that released by the publisher. So all secondary sources that can be added have been added.--Kristina Meister (talk) 10:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A blog entry posted by the author's agent is not "independent of the subject". Typical sources for a book article are defined as: "published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews" and explicitly not "media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book".

If Creature's Cookbook has not yet received any mainstream reviews or other press coverage, it is too early for it to have an article in Wikipedia. --McGeddon (talk) 10:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that while looking for sources to improve the article, I found a couple of sites identifying Kristina Meister as the author of this book ("Kristina Meister writing as the monster Simon Alkenmayer"). The article (and the now-deleted Simon Alkenmayer article) were previously claiming Alkenmayer to be the author and implying that he was a real person. --McGeddon (talk) 11:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am the editor of the project. The citation that was added was added in error. But if you would like to continue editing the entry with a vendetta and bad information, we would all just rather you remove the article. But when I attempted to delete, you put it back up. So do as you please and delete the entry. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristina Meister (talk • contribs) 20:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could find no evidence that Simon Alkenmayer existed (just some jokey press releases describing him as a real-life "immortal monster who must eat humans to survive" who has a publishing deal), and two sources describing horror writer Kristina Meister as the author writing under a pseudonym. As the only other editor to have worked on this article, I've no objection to a speedy delete under WP:G7. --McGeddon (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The original author has requested deletion on the grounds that the article was based on mistaken information. Peridon (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Teejay

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

Tamil musician; I don't think that he meets the WP:MUSIC guideline. The article has a couple of references (he was interviewed on IBC Tamil; I note that 'Famous Birthdays' depends on user-supplied material) and lists 5 singles; I don't think this is enough. Google search didn't return much relevant information. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator of this article and i updated the content about his Discography, Career and updated the References. I think the article is under Wikipedia guidelines. Please review it again, Thank you. Aadhitharajan (talk) 11:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is too soon, move to userspace. A handful of songs as a playback artist does not qualify under Music criteria. The BBC Asian interview does show he has a developing career, but the other sources, such as cineulagam.com, only list a short profile. They do not indicate that he 'commercially successful' as the article currently claims. Karst (talk) 12:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 14:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 03:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy G5 autobiography of Felixandrew26. for (;;) (talk) 09:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Felixandrew26 about the G5 request.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & salt. Thanks to Jo-Jo Eumerus for checking out the (lack of) similarity to the prior versions which involved puppetry. The subject is still not notable despite the 4 prior creations of the article. Switching G5 to del & salt. for (;;) (talk) 08:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also possibly eligible for G4... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teejay (singer). for (;;) (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Sour

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

Still nothing at all actually suggesting any convincing independent notability, sources listed are only PR and trivial with my own searches finding nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:BIO. references are almost all unreliable. LibStar (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'll add my inclusionist voice to those of my deletionist counterparts above: I don't see GNG met, nor the music SNG, nor even the low bar spirit of our pop culture coverage. This smacks of self-promotion. Carrite (talk) 15:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Khushal Asefi

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

No proof in this article that mr. Hakimi is notable. Article and sources on Google point to a man with a job The Banner talk 07:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 10:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The article does not demonstrate notability as a broadcaster (WP:GNG) nor as an instructor (WP:PROF). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a Google search returned no reliable coverage that would indicate that the subject passes WP:GNG and the reliability of the current cited sources is questionable. Omni Flames (talk) 08:09, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Engleham (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haroon Hakimi

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

No proof in this article that mr. Hakimi is notable. Article and sources on Google point to a man with a job The Banner talk 07:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 10:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing to show he is notable for poetry, and his government and media postions are no where near enough to make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails any test for Wikipedia notability. Engleham (talk) 19:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 14:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the best I could do at sourcing is a single quote he gave to a Deutsche Welle interviewer about a politically sensitive Turkish movie, DW described him as "said Haroon Hakimi, spokesman for the Afghan Ministry of Information and Culture." [1]. No sources = no article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Benedikt Sebastian

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

Not all convincing for independent notability as the listed works were not significant characters and my searches noticeably found nothing actually better. Listed sources are not substantially convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He would have to scrape by on the actor notability guidelines if he could scrape by anywhere. However this is unlikely to happen. His role in the one film we have an article for does not look to have been all that significant, and even if it was, we would need another clearly notable film he appeared in, and we do not have that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 14:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 03:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a non notable actor. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wealth Beyond Wall Street

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

Still nothing suggestive of the needed independent notability and my own searches have found nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey User:SwisterTwister I added this business "Wealth Beyond Wall Street" because of two things really:

1. The search "Wealth Beyond Wall Street" (And other longer tail searches combined with Free book etc) are searched 1800-2000 times more or less in Google every month.

2. The reason it is searched so much is, because this business is all over the radio, tv and other media (Not so much online mostly they are very "physical" sending postcards even from what I have heard from different people) this is happening all over the country it seems and people are interested in learning more about this company because of the economic times we live in.

Hence the high search volume.

I added into wikipedia so there is a neutral place for people to get information on the company because from what I see most reviews and such that are out there are mostly affiliates of theirs and this would be the one place that could be truly independent. Hopefully it won't get deleted. Clifffonte (talk) 12:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 14:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 03:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. essentially a promotional article, with very borderlien notability DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by the fact that these guys are well known through out the country as an investment company and have their business searched for from all over thousands of times every month more then some celebrities. I don't see how this couldn't have enough notability. Clifffonte (talk) 09:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. I search quite a bit, but the dept of coverage in reliable, independent and secondary sources was clearly lacking. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 15:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Easton Park

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

PROD removed with the thin explanation that it not being built is not sufficient for deleting, but the fact is there's simply nothing else to suggest any notability, here or later; the article is still rather advert-toned and the local sources are simply press talking about this, there's still nothing at all to suggest the needed independent notability. As it is, it's been planned for 4 years now with no actual founding signs of any assumed notability but with only news expectedly talking about a local business venture, there's nothing to accept. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Austin, Texas, which presently has no mention of this topic, which has received significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. See sources below. The state of the project (not built) is not aligned with topic notability per WP:GNG. See also WP:NOTBUILT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Barragan, James; Rockwell, Lilly (June 27, 2016). "Master-planned community in Austin will have 1,000 affordable units". Austin American-Statesman. Retrieved July 8, 2016.
"Who's in the Pilot House?". The Austin Chronicle. February 9, 2016. Retrieved July 8, 2016.
Lim, Andra (June 27, 2016). "Emails show mayor irked, departments concerned over Easton Park deal". Austin American-Statesman. Retrieved July 8, 2016.
McGivern, Kylie (March 4, 2016). "City council reconsiders controversial Pilot Knob affordable housing deal". KXAN-TV. Retrieved July 8, 2016.
King, Michael (February 12, 2016). "Put This in Your PUD and Smoke It!". The Austin Chronicle. Retrieved July 8, 2016.
Buchholz, Jan (March 19, 2014). "Brookfield Residential unveils master-planned community in Southeast Austin". Austin Business Journal. Retrieved July 8, 2016.
"City strikes back on Pilot Knob lawsuit". Austin Monitor. March 15, 2016. Retrieved July 8, 2016. (subscription required)
"Council starts Pilot Knob amendments". Austin Monitor. March 4, 2016. Retrieved July 8, 2016. (subscription required)
"The nitty-gritty of a Pilot Knob reconsideration". Austin Monitor. March 3, 2016. Retrieved July 8, 2016. (subscription required)
"Updated: Rodgers sues city to stop Pilot Knob deal". Austin Monitor. February 11, 2016. Retrieved July 8, 2016. (subscription required)
Theis, Michael (December 21, 2015). "Hundreds of affordable houses, new commercial projects set for Southeast Austin". Austin Business Journal. Retrieved July 8, 2016.

Keep There are enough sources to show this is a significant development in Austin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Despite rumors to the contrary, this is a real place with real homes -- some of which are occupied by residents. There should be 50-100 occupied homes by the end of the year. I've added a photo to the article to show this development. Straley (talk) 17:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I deprodded this in part because the prod rationale stated, "Still too soon considering that, not only has it not been built, but it's nowhere near there. Delete at best for now as independent notability has not been established yet." (diff). In part, I feel that the "delete at best for now" part is inaccurate, because the Austin, Texas article presently has no mention of the topic (other than in the merge template I added), and the topic has received a great deal of significant coverage in Texan sources. As such, "at best" in my opinion extends to at least a merge of the content, as a functional WP:ATD that will improve the merge target article. Also see image at right. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 16:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep under the condition that this article be rewritten so the the subject is actually the 1000 units set aside for low income families (perhaps in conjunction with the other units). It also appears that a number of units are to be slated for mid-level income families. It seems to me, these facts illustrate the significant impact of this project. Not tedious and monotonous promotional details that are not worthy of note.

In fact, I think I will try to rewrite this later today. Also, I am willing to bet this can be moved to a more appropriate title (or topic heading) for Wikipedia after this AfD concludes - such as "Easton Park affordable housing" or something like that. I think the current title, as it is, is based on promoting this development more than its significant effect. Also, thanks again to @Northamerica1000: for providing sources that demonstrate notability of topics. Steve Quinn (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep yes the content may need tweaking and trimming. Slu tsu (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't able to get back to this as soon as I hoped. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SuperMetaldave64

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had only passing mentions in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Do note that most of the sources currently in the article are from unreliable sources. czar 06:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 06:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar 06:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I created this article, admittedly, and know little to nothing about the subject of video games. Are not Design & Trend, Christian Post, GoNintendo, and Tech Times reliable sources? Are they not indeed independent of the topic in question? They are somewhat passing mentions, in the respect that they are mentioned briefly in the articles, but the topic itself appears to be the cause of their discussion. I believe that an interview with Denis Dyack indeed makes the subject non-routine for a Youtuber. I'm not asking and stating these sarcastically either, this is my first deletion discussion, and I definitely want to become acclimated to the discussion environment here on Wikipedia. Milo Yiannopoulos' Hair (talk) 08:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In order to be considered notable according to Wikipedia's standards, you need third party sources about him, not third party sources citing him. If "Tech Times did a story about SuperMetalDave64, then that'd be valid. WP:VG/S has a list of sources to use and avoid. Pretty sure GoNintendo is one to avoid, FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 17:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see!!! This has been quite edifying, thank you for clarifying this, the notability guidelines on Wikipedia are more linked to availible information in fully reputible sources. That makes perfect sense. Sergecross73, NinjaRobotPirate, and Tokyogirl79. I do know that SuperMetaldave was linked to some some high profile leaks in and around December of last year involving NEOGAF, there may be some interesting coverage in there somewhere. I am too now, however, leaning towards deletion. This is more of draft material, rather than actual article material. My bad, again, thank you for giving a bit more insight into the inner workings on this site. Milo Yiannopoulos' Hair (talk) 11:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He got mentioned in a few articles as a source, but there seems to be very little information about him. Wikipedia isn't a who's who catalog where you get rewarded with an article once you quoted by a few news articles. We would need in-depth coverage about the person himself, such as analysis of his skill as a journalist and reliability. I don't see that. One or two of the sources did look like maybe they would go that way, but they merely speculated on the reliability of his sources. If someone can point out something that I missed, I'd be willing to change my vote. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A few reliable sources using the subject as a source for rumors is not on the path to meeting the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 17:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything that's actually about this person. He exists as a person and as a YT personality, but this does not automatically make someone notable, nor does the amount of video views or followers. It's insanely difficult for YT (or other social media) personalities to pass notability guidelines and there are thousands of people with far higher follow counts that fail notability guidelines. Heck, PewDiePie's article was repeatedly deleted until 2013, long after his follow counts went into the millions. It's just that hard to pass notability guidelines on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as still nothing at all minimally convincing for his own actual notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Darius series bosses

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

The minutiae of enemy details from a video game is outside our scope as an encyclopedia, especially when it has no secondary sources. I would have just redirected it to the series, as Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap, but I don't see such a redirect being useful. czar 06:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 06:12, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although this list article has a "references" section, it is actually unreferenced, since the alleged references are spurious and are original research from the mind of the list creator. Unless reliable, independent sources discuss the wide range of these video games "bosses", we should not have an unreferenced list of them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mainly "how to" play the game. Who else would be interested? Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly WP:GAMEGUIDE material. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 21:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sajjad Khaksari

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

Nothing at all to insinuate the needed convincing independent notability and the contents are not actually pertaining to this, the best there is, about his controversies and that's certainly not convincing; searches have found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 14:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 03:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At this time, this fails WP:GNG and the entire article is a violation of WP:NOTADVOCATE. For any activist, there will usually be significant coverage - at least in other countries if not the home country. I do not see any independent coverage - rather all the references cited are either written by the subject or are self published/unreliable. There is hardly anything online either. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is obviously violation of notability criteria. It looks like the whole family have made Wikipedia pages for themselves! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niarad (talk • contribs) 08:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Article passes neither subject specific guidelines nor GNG. Fenix down (talk) 05:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Samy T.

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

I tagged this for CSD#A7, but the tag was removed by the creator; so I'd rather avoid a revert-war by sending this here. The subject is a high-school football player, who does not remotely meet either WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG. Delete. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An unreferenced biography of a non-notable youth athlete. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is a high school soccer player. He may well rise to being a notable soccer player, but he is not there yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSOCCER. This is borderline A7-worthy, and merely playing in a high school-level football team doesn't make him notable. Omni Flames (talk) 12:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced BLP about a high school soccer player who fails WP:GNG, WP:NCOLLATH, WP:NSPORTS, and WP:NSOCCER.Mdtemp (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG, WP:NFOOTY, and WP:NHSPHSATH (WP:NCOLLATH does not apply here). — Jkudlick • t • c • s 00:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 00:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Per WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brian D'Ambrosio

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

IP editor from the subject's location keeps removing the notability tag, so editors glancing at the article may believe the sources are sufficient and since the article has been in this state for a few years now, without that tag it makes it unlikely that the sourcing is going to be improved to the point that it meets any notability guideline, and I have been unable to find any sources either that show sufficient notability for the article's subject.

The article's subject fails to meet any of the notability criteria of WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, or WP:BIO. There are plenty of sources, and D'Ambrosio's name is mentioned in the third-party sources, but all of them are trivial mentions. There are sources reviewing books, but none of which mention D'Ambrosio aside from trivial mentions of being the author, and none of those sources meet WP:AUTHOR. Aoidh (talk) 03:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Journalists are hard enough to source out in the best of scenarios, this falls far short of that SNG. Nor does Author seem to be met. Nor GNG. Carrite (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 14:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I grant that this is a lousy article, but there are quite a lot of sourcing out there. Here:[2] is a search on "marvin Camel" + D'Ambrosio at google news, it brings up articles from which a bio can be sources, and book reviews to validate notability as a biographer. And this: After wrongfully convicted inmate freed, Missoula writer has cause to celebrate .[3]. This should simply be tagged for improvement, sourcing, style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory (talk • contribs) 13:41, 5 August 2016(UTC)

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

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

The result was procedural close. Already at MfD. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 02:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Connorsonian Islam

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

Fictional sect. Cotton2 (talk) 02:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There's a clear consensus that this doesn't belong here as a stand-alone article. If anyone (Carrite?) wants to use the material in writing an article about the school, I'll userfy the article; just ask on my talk page. Deor (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commerce Tigers Football

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

high school football team Fbdave (talk) 01:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Commerce, Georgia#Education. The notion that we ought to have an article about a small town high school football team when we have no article about the high school itself strikes me as . . . bizarre. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to America! Carrite (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG, WP:ORG and by analogy WP:NHSPHSATH. Cbl62 (talk) 16:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reformat to Comerce High School (Commerce, Georgia). School outcomes say we keep all articles on high schools, so we need an article on this high school, so we just have to make this the football sub-section.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we typically do not keep articles on high school football teams, and I see no reason to make an exception here. Try another wiki?--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete - If this wasn't utterly unsourced, one might make a sound argument for merger.~~ Carrite (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Actually, it occurs to me that a simple name change to Commerce High School would make this keepable on that ground. I see JPL is on that already above. Carrite (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and change name to Commerce High School, with the above content a subsection. Carrite (talk) 15:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing administrator - If this is a Keep + Rename result, ping me after the close and I will start a basic article on the school. Carrite (talk) 15:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect instead as there still would not be enough for its intended en actually convincing article; while there could an article for the high school since these are notable, this is the best path for now since none of the current contents are independently convincing. SwisterTwister talk 20:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that it is a good idea to have an article about the school, and if someone wants to write it, I approve. If someone wants to completely transform this article so that it is about the school, and move it, I will not object. But because this article is unsourced, I have a slight preference for deletion of this article and creation of a new one. I see nothing here worth saving. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see the point, but unsourced does not necessarily mean that the information is wrong and unsourceable. Southern High Schools are harder to source out than from other regions of the country due to bad replication of back files of newspapers, etc. via newspapers.com and so on, but there is no reason to think this school would be an insurmountable task. Carrite (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a bio of a living person and if the article were re-tooled to be about the high school (and include the football team), I have no objection. I can assume good faith that the high school exists, online sources can be found, and give time for the article to develop.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yes an article should be created on the school. This article has no bearing on that process. The majority of the article in question here is content that even if it could be properly sourced would be unencyclopedic either due to being out of guidelines or per WP:WEIGHT.John from Idegon (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Per WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Complication (song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article needs help but sources are avaliable to expand upon it. The song is highly experimental for its time and even appears on the Nuggets compilation, one of the most regarded compilations of all time.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete this article fails gng. Get this off of wiki 2607:FB90:240B:70DE:AADA:FC8A:39C6:ED24 (talk) 01:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note - IP is CrazyAces evading his block and harassing me.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 14:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kilo Class (novel)

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

Non-notable novel tagged since September 2008. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Better source search? Jclemens (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This and the Publisher's Weekly review are two independent RS'es focusing on this particular book. Plenty of other bookseller links show it's a mainstream novel. No objection to redirecting to author's page until improvements are made and it's spun out appropriately, but this appears to be a legitimate, notable fictional work. Jclemens (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, its also been reviewed by BookList - "Robinson's latest meticulously researched novel .." and "Again, too, readers can probably guess the outcome right from the start, but for fans of the genre, Robinson delivers a wild ride all the way"[4] and AudioFile - "George Guidall gives his formidable all to this straight-ahead, damn-the-torpedoes techno-thriller by an established master. The only reservation one might express about this production is regret that such a prodigious talent has been lavished on such undemanding material."[5], and its held in over 800 libraries[6] and been published in various languages[7]. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several non-trivial reviews in reliable sources plus the long article in 'The Day' satisfy notability. Gab4gab (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pegasus Sustainability Solutions

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

Seems to be a run-of-the-mill waste management company. 32 employees and less than 10 million in capital investement. Surely fails WP:CORP. Slashme (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Slashme (talk) 21:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Company has developed unique intellectual property that is potentially highly disruptive to a $30 billion industry. Company is associated with very important regional venture capital firms. Company is an innovator and disruptor. I will add to the content to ensure that the company's page is more robust.--MarketVoice12 (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting since I was asked, Delete as I have tagged it, nothing at all actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 07:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A single independent link from a reliable regional source is why I contested the speedy deletion of this article. The article reads like a promotion piece for the company and it would need to be rewritten from scratch to be an encyclopedic topic. Fails WP:CORP. Royal broil 13:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lamont White

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

Not notable per WP:NGRIDIRON: I can find no evidence online that he ever played in a Vikings game or any other professional game. The rest is mostly unreferenced claims about a semi-pro career playing and coaching, and some referenced ones about him doing community sports work with young people. No indication of notability per WP:BIO, and no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. OnionRing (talk) 00:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still nothing convincing fr the applicable independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 01:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable player of American football.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete head coach a at a Junior College (2-year), which typically does not meet notability threshholds. I do not see reason to pass WP:GNG or any other measure at this time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per WP:GRIDIRON, no reliable source that actually states he's ever played an actual prefessional game of football. Omni Flames (talk) 12:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Many new references have also been uncovered during this AfD. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dean John-Wilson

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

Only major best known work so far is Aladdin and even his Miss Atomic Bomb was simply as a "Soldier" character, it's still too soon at best for any actual convincing independent notability; my searches have simply found expected trivial mentions and nothing yet substantial. SwisterTwister talk 00:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has one major acting role, but he needs 2 to pass the notability criteria for acotrs. His role in Miss Atomic Bomb is not enough to count as a second role.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Only one of the sources has more than a passing mention of him, so he also fails WP:GNG. KSFT ^C 15:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I am really befuddled by this nomination. I have found several notable sources and published interviews, indicating he clearly passes WP:ENTERTAINER. But just to be sure folks aren't missing anything, here's an example of what I mean: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here, (this one is notable because it lists some of his other professional stage credits besides Aladdin and Miss Atomic Bomb: "stage credits include Songs For A New World at the St. James Theatre, London, Here Lies Love at the Royal National Theatre, From Here To Eternity at the Shaftesbury Theatre, Super Ordinary at the Soho Theatre, Bare at the Union Theatre, London and Sister Act: The Musical’s UK Tour.")

I should also probably correct some misinformation from above. According to the sources, his role in Miss Atomic Bomb was also a leading role, as this review clearly shows; and the character's name was "Joey" - not just "Soldier" - as this review clearly states.

But even those exclude the additional notability he derives from being one of the top finishers on Britain's Got Talent, as noted here, demonstrated here covered here and even referenced here. By receiving significant coverage in multiple published reliable sources, he also easily passes both WP:BASIC and WP:GNG.

So in review, he's received significant coverage for his prominent theatre and television show work, as well as the tabloid coverage he's received as the boyfriend of recent Tony Award winning "Best Actress" Cynthia Erivo. So to those who've argued that he only has the one stage credit of Aladdin and "minor" work in Miss Atomic Bomb to support his notability, I think a full review of the reliably sourced, published record obviously shows much more than that. Subject clears WP:ENT, WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. X4n6 (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow time for consideration of sources presented in the most recent !vote. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow time for consideration of sources presented in the most recent !vote. Pinging participants SwisterTwister, Johnpacklambert and KSFT to revisit the discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Now that these other sources have been shown, it looks like he meets GNG, so I'm changing to keep. KSFT ^C 12:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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